that even security directives have been revised seven our eight times. t.s.a.'s use of the security directives makes us ask the question, what immediate threat is t.s.a. addressing with these security directives in the manner they're proceeding? this amendment would ensure that the waiver of the administrative procedures act occurs only when there's an imminent threat of finite duration. t.s.a. would still have the ability to quickly respond to such threats, but if the directive is in place for longer than six months it would be required to conduct the regular rulemaking process. this amendment would refine issuance processes to make it truly responsive to imminent threats and not just the whim of the agency. that's not what we ended. so i ask my colleagues to join other colleagues here in trying to strengthen and clarify this

law and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thompson: mr. chair, i'd like to yield my time to the gentleman from oregon for the purpose of opposition debate. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. at this point i'd yield myself three minutes. i share with the gentleman. he and i helped create the transportation security administration. tremendous frustration with, you know, bureaucracy that gets over the edge for no real purpose. i will not say that the current process is perfect, particularly as it relates to general aviation. we've had a couple of problems, one in which the chairman has been very involved, what

constitutes a potential threat aircraft, and also the issue of background checks for those who work in the general aviation field. but beyond that many of these directives are based on sensitive security information or even classified information. so they could not very well, if you were dealing, say, with the gel and liquids rule, subject that to the bureaucratic rulemaking process. i don't think the way to solve inadequate sees and problems with the current -- in adequacies and problems with the current process. i don't think on a normal day the gentleman from florida would ever, you know, present the idea to this congress that we should expand rulemaking and go back and revisit rules that have already been made and put them through a process. he wants more transparency.

he wants common sense and he wants stake holder groups an opportunity to intervene. the legislation does bring stake holder groups in the process, particularly as it results to general aviation. the gentleman is going after nonsensical rules and problems. one that happened with a group of aged veterans on a charter aircraft where the chairman has called the agency to account and asked for a review of the procedures they're using. i would say there's a new era where we are going to make them responsive and responsible and meet our true security needs. but if you impose this on the entire structure, we are going to divert a lot of resources on the transportation security administration over into a bureaucratic, lengthy rulemaking process that is not going to have the flexibility to change, say, the liquids rule from all liquids are banned to, well, prescriptions can go, to so many ounces can go.

each of those would have required a six-month to two-year change in the process during which we would be locked into what first emergency rule would be allowed underhe gentleman's amendment. it's not a practical way. i yield back. mr. mica: how much time has left? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes left and the gentleman from florida has 2 1/2 minutes left. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i'd like to yield to 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. ehlers, also a co-sponsor of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. ehlers: some may ask, why do this? just look at the history and the record of the t.s.a. and some of the things they've done. how many of you rememberever we flew into washington national airport we had to sit in our seats for 30 minutes before

landing and we had to sit in the seats for 30 minutes after takeoff? a totally nonsensical rule -- >> will the gentleman yield on that? mr. ehlers: i will not. i do not have the time. mr. defazio: well, the gentleman -- mr. ehlers: i have the time. the point is they make nonsensical rules that are totally unresponsive to our efforts to change it and that rule was not changed until i offered an amendment on the rule. an amendment was passed by acclamation and laughter because everyone supported it. now they've done some more regulations about general aviation without consulting the committee, without consulting general aviation interests and doing what i think is really very strange, often stupid regulations. it is clear that they need better review and that they have to use more caution and consult with those affected when they are developing rules.

i think this bill will force them to think more carefully and thoroughly about what they are doing and what they are pro posing to do. i support this amendment particularly as it dls with general aviation because that's where the problems have developed recently and i urge this body to adopt this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: mr. chair, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for the balance of the time, 2 1/2 minutes. mr. defazio: who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves the right to close -- has the right to close. the gentleman from florida. mr. defazio: i'll speak for 1 1/2 and then let him finish and then i'll summarize. i thank the gentleman for yielding. first f,