It's really the US Senate we need to get to now. Here is some additional background excerpted from some correspondence I've been having.
From a pragmatic perspective, a win on this particular bit of legislation is unlikely, this is a huge bill. However, letting our elected representatives know that we're unhappy about what has happened is a start, and may lead to better work down the road.
-->Aaron
The House has passed 7 spending bills, and only 2 were passed by the
Senate - the rest were either voted down or were prevented from coming
to a vote. A number republicans had to join the democratic minority in
blocking the bills. There are lots of reasons - but I think the basic
one is that these bills continue to ratchet up the debt, and Republican
Senators are not willing to go along with the Republican Senate
leadership on this.
The solution hit upon by Rep. Delay and Sen. Frisk was to have a new
House bill passed HR 2673, and have Frisk send a senator to the house
after House passage to meet and 'report' the bill out of a house/senate
conference. By senate rules, now this bill must be passed as is, or
rejected - no amendments allowed. And it seems that a number of special
interests items were added since the bill cannot be changed. Pretty
sneaky ! (although the Demos probably used this trick in the past too !)
So my hope is that the same Republican senators will oppose the new bill
for the same reasons they opposed prior spending bills.
If the bill is rejected (or does not come to a vote - if a filibuster or
the threat of it is successful) the house will need to pass a new set of
bills in the new congress and we can hope that we will be able to
protect our interests by pushing the HR 2144 bill.
If the congress continues to be deadlocked - they will either pass a
continuing funding resolution extending last years laws (no help to us
but keeps the permanent ban at bay) or they will shut the government
down for a few days as the dissenting Senators play hardball. We have a
real chance in this latter as this can be a wedge issue.
There are several arguments we should present to the Senators - who owns
and controls the Federal airspace? Who can control the delivery of
messages (of all sorts including private, political, religious, and
commercial) to large gatherings of citizens. What process will congress
use to enact regulations. In my view this is yet another example of just
how broken is our election funding system, so the final issue legalized
really corruption, where favorable regulations can be bought for a
price.
Hope this helps
-----------------------------
This bill contains wording in Section 521 that indefinitely continues
unfair and un-needed restrictions on aircraft flight over stadiums. This
bill should be sent back to the house for repairs and removal of the
special interest restrictions on free speech, and a bald attempt to
privatize the use and control of segments of the national airspace, And
shame on the Representative that inserted the text, in that the wording
is deceptive, referring only to the continuing effect of three Notices
to Airmen (Notams).
Although HR 2673 is a conference bill, this provision was inserted
without being in any prior bill, without any hearings, and is not
referenced in the summary statement. The spokesman for the House has
publicly declined to identify the representative(s) that placed this in
the bill.
In allowing these restrictions to continue, my ability to earn a living
and support my family has been seriously damaged, as has that of my
pilots and mechanics.
HR 2144 (Technical Corrections to the Homeland Security Act) is a bill
that includes sensible provisions to regulate stadium flights. This bill
was reported out of committee and has been waiting for a vote in the
House since June 25.
---------------------------
The <http://www.senate.gov>
www.senate.gov website has a link (
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.02673:%20that>
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.02673: that points to
the current status of this bill.
This bill is due to be brought up for a Senate cloture vote on January
20, 2003, and if successful, the final vote would then be made within 4
days.
cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a
time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby
overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate
may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but
only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
The summary of the bill (located at the House Appropriations
Subcommittee website (
<
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Deta
il&PressRelease_id=342>
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detai
l&PressRelease_id=342 ) contains no reference to the limitation on
banner flights. Here is the text of the summary:
Supports Aviation:
A total of $14 billion is provided to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) -- $460 million over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level and $36 million below the President's request. This includes $3.4
billion for the Airport Improvement Program and $102 Million for
Essential Air Service.
The bad news is that the banner towing provision in this bill cannot be
removed by amendment as the bill is a House conference report and by
Senate rules, they must vote on the bill as it stands. The reason for
this is that the House and Senate leadership have not had good success
in passing spending bills this session and so have lumped all of the
unpassed spending bills together under this conference report believing
that the Senate will be forced to pass the bill.
The only paths for us on this is to
convince 39 senators that cloture is not appropriate for this spending
bill, and have cloture voted down, and then have the same senators
support a filibuster until Senator Frisk pulls the bill back, or
convince 49 senators that this is a bad spending bill, and have it voted
down.
The cloture path followed by a filibuster would give us the opportunity
to get the provisions of HR 2144 re-introduced into a new House
conference report bill, or the forwarding of HR 2144 to the senate for a
vote. This may not be as hard as one might suspect. There are numerous
organizations (like us) that oppose particular sections of the existing
HR 2673 bill. One that comes to mind is the Controllers union (opposing
the outsourcing of ATC positions).
So what we need to do is
Make this a grass roots effort to protect our interests. I suggest we
call ourselves the Committee to Free Our Skies from the Blood Sucking
Sports Interests (well maybe a slightly simpler name would be The
Committee to Free Our Skies CFOS)
We have 34 days to make our mark on this.
-----------------------------
Below is the provision in the Omnibus spending bill that relates to
banner advertising flights. I have also included a recent story on the
issue. The bill is HR 2673. It passed the House on December 8, but has
not been considered by the Senate. -Jon
SEC. 521. (a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Transportation--
(1) shall, without regard to any fiscal year limitation, maintain in
full force and effect the restrictions imposed under Federal Aviation
Administration Notices to Airmen FDC 3/2122, FDC 3/2123, and FDC 2/0199;
and
(2) may not grant any waivers or exemptions from such restrictions,
except--
(A) as authorized by air traffic control for operational or safety
purposes;
(B) with respect to an event, stadium, or other venue--
(i) for operational purposes;
(ii) for the transport of team members, officials of the governing body,
and immediate family members and guests of such team members and
officials to and from such event, stadium, or venue;
(iii) in the case of a sporting event, for the transport of equipment or
parts to and from such sporting event;
(iv) to permit a broadcast rights holder to provide broadcast coverage
of such event, stadium, or venue; and
(v) for safety and security purposes related to such event, stadium, or
venue; and
(C) to allow the operation of an aircraft in restricted airspace to the
extent necessary to arrive at or depart from an airport using standard
air traffic control procedures.
(b) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS.--None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by title I of this Act may be obligated or
expended to terminate or limit the restrictions imposed under the
Federal Aviation Administration Notices to Airmen referred to in
subsection (a), or to grant waivers of, or exemptions from, such
restrictions except as provided under subsection (a)(2).
(c) BROADCAST CONTRACTS NOT AFFECTED.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect contractual rights pertaining to any broadcasting
agreement.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++
CQ TODAY - APPROPRIATIONS
Dec. 12, 2003 - 7:26 p.m.
Extension on Ban on Stadium Flyovers Put in Omnibus Spending Measure By
Isaiah J. Poole, CQ Staff
The company that brews your favorite beer can put advertising on the
blimp that provides aerial coverage of a sporting event, but chances are
a local bar that serves that beer cannot use the same airspace to invite
customers. It has been that way for much of the time since the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks. And thanks to the fiscal 2004 omnibus appropriations
package (HR 2673 - H Rept 108-401) the House passed last week, that
dichotomy is likely to continue.
Pilots who make their living towing advertising banners had hoped the
ban on flights over sports stadiums would end next Feb. 20, a year after
the signing of the fiscal 2003 omnibus appropriations package (PL 108-7)
that imposed the ban. They claim their business has been decimated by a
law that discriminates against them in favor of corporations that strike
deals with sports teams and venues.
Safety Concerns
Professional and collegiate sports teams, citing safety concerns, were
among those who pushed for the ban and want to keep it in place.
Sen. John B. Breaux, D-La., wrote the prohibition included in last
year's omnibus at the behest of Louisiana State University. Among those
opposing the ban then was Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Language that would indefinitely extend the restrictions imposed by
three Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directives governing stadium
flyovers is part of the section of the omnibus funding Transportation
Department programs.
The bill would permit DOT to grant waivers or exemptions only for
flights directly linked to the event, for broadcasters transmitting
pictures from overhead, or when a flyover is necessary to get an
airplane to or from an airport.
The Senate is scheduled to consider the omnibus spending package when it
reconvenes Jan. 20.
House Appropriations spokesman John Scofield declined to comment on how
the extension of the ban ended up in the omnibus. The provision was in
neither the House-passed nor the Senate passed version of the
Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill (HR 2989), which eventually
was folded into the omnibus.
"From the perspective of the NCAA, this is a safety issue," said Jeff
Howard, a spokesman for the college athletic association.
Spokespersons for universities with large stadiums, including the
University of Michigan and Pennsylvania State University, have said
their institutions' concerns are not limited to the possibility that a
plane might be deliberately flown into a stadium.
"There was a general sense, apart from 9/11, that having a bunch of
little planes darting over that crowd wasn't the smartest thing in the
world," said Penn State spokesman Steve McCarthy.
An FAA spokesman said the agency has no position on the ban. The agency
had granted waivers to pilots who received security clearances. Later,
the newly created Transportation Security Administration took over the
waiver process. Complaints About Inconsistency
Companies that fly banners say they have been struggling to survive, and
they also complain about what they call inconsistencies in how the ban
has been working.
Jim Butler, president of Aerial Sign Co. in Hollywood, Fla., said his
company has lost 40 percent of its business, although he was able to fly
over the Orange Bowl during University of Miami football games. "We can
fly around the stadium with 85,000 people during a Britney Spears
concert, and the next day they can put on a baseball game with 10,000
people and we can't fly that event," Butler said. 'Not a Security Issue'
"This is not a security issue. This is not a safety issue," Butler
added. The current rules amount to "relinquishing control of the
airspace to the private sector, and selective people in the private
sector," he said. Joel Jaye, who owns Big Up Worldwide in Dublin,
Calif., also expressed anger about the restrictions. But he is fighting
back. The ban does not apply to aircraft at altitudes above 3,000 feet,
so Jaye is marketing banners that can be seen at that height.
That will suit large businesses that can bear the cost, he said. But for
everyone else, the ban "took away the people's right to say whatever
they want to say over these events."
========================================================================
====
Jon Hixson, V.P. of Legislative Affairs
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
601 Penn. Ave., NW
Suite 875 South Building
Washington, DC 20004
p. 202-737-7950
f. 202-737-7951
c. 202-641-6564
