[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 124 (Friday, September 21, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5875-H5884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 242
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of Friday, September 21, 2001, providing for
consideration or disposition of a bill to preserve the
continued viability of the United States air transportation
system.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman
[[Page H5876]]
from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 242 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII
requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is
reported from the Committee on Rules. The rule applies to the waiver to
a special rule reported on the legislative day of September 21, 2001,
providing for consideration or disposition of a bill to preserve the
continued viability of the United States air transport system, H.R.
2926, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act.
The rule allows this body to take up this legislation in a timely
fashion, making it possible for prompt consideration of a much needed
relief measure for the struggling airline industry.
Mr. Speaker, this House has been united as rarely, if ever, seen
before. We came together in an overwhelming and bipartisan fashion to
aid those in crisis and support our President as he seeks justice.
Today, we need to come together again to consider a critical piece of
legislation to further guide our Nation and its citizens through this
crisis. Now is not the time for stalling or dilatory tactics. This
legislation has been approved by leaders on both sides of the aisle, in
both Chambers, and in conjunction with the administration. It is
imperative that we move forward with this urgent measure.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule so we may proceed with the
legislation itself.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding the time,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is the first of two rules that we will consider. This rule
provides for the waiver of the 24-hour layover requirement for the next
rule. I will have a fairly lengthy statement when we take up the next
rule. We do have a number of speakers who want to speak on this rule as
well as the next rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, here we have before us a bill that will cost the
taxpayers of America more than $20 billion. There will be 1 hour of
debate. No amendments will be allowed. Even if this bill passes,
100,000 people in jobs directly related to the airline industry will
lose their jobs. We have heard that from the CEOs who essentially wrote
this bill. They are still going to fire or lay off 100,000 people.
There is not one penny in this bill of accommodation for those people,
for their insurance, for their mortgage, or anything else. Not one
penny.
There are tens of thousands of other people who work in related
businesses: travel agents, car rental agencies, hotels. The list is
endless. There is not one penny for those people of assistance in this
bill. Not an emergency disaster declaration. No help with their
payments to the bank. Not one penny.
And then we go to our local airports. Millions of dollars a day are
being spent by our local airports to beef up security. There is not one
penny in this bill for them either. So 100,000 workers, related
workers, all the other governments in America that are incurring costs,
not one cent in this bill.
Even more distressing than that is the fact that the inadequate
security measures that prevailed before this tragedy continue to
prevail and under this bill will not be improved. This bill does not
specify that we will federalize airport security, which we have heard
from virtually every expert, we have even heard it from the airline
CEOs, they just say they are not willing to pay for it, and they say
the American public will not pay for it. They say the American public
will not tolerate a $3 tax for airline security. That is incredible.
They are so out of touch. But they are so much in touch that they got
everything they wanted in this bill, but everybody else is excluded.
This bill does not do the things we need to do today. It might be
hard to write a good bill by tonight, but we can stay here this weekend
and write a bill. If this is a crisis, why are the Republicans running
out of town? Why are they pushing us out of here? Why are they limiting
debate? And why are they not allowing a single amendment?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last night we heard
from our President about what this Nation needs to do to come together
in the face of the challenge and the crises and the dangers that we
face. Yet today the first thing we do is bring out legislation that is
very narrow in its focus. It only takes care of the solvency of the
airlines to the exclusion of everyone else; to the exclusion of the
workers who have lost their jobs, who are directly related to this, to
their families, the problems they are suffering now as a result of
that.
We take care of airline executive compensation. They are guaranteed
in this bill they can make somewhere between 5 and 35, and, if they
bail out of this industry in the next few months, they can make up to
$70 million. They are taken care of. But the people who have lost their
health care coverage, the people who have lost their income, they are
not taken care of.
This is about a Nation going forward together. But in this
legislation, we left the workers behind. This legislation is based upon
the premise that somehow if we give the airlines a bailout, that people
will fly again.
But this legislation does not deal with the problems that the
American public is concerned about. They are not concerned about
whether or not their airline is solvent, they are concerned about
whether or not it is safe. We failed to address, as we have for over a
decade, the federalization of the law enforcement powers given to the
people who are screening the bags and providing security. The fact of
the matter is we have heard from so many people in the airline industry
that people are only marginally better off, if any better off, since
September 11 in the airline industry. That is why they are not flying.
This legislation should direct this administration and this
government to federalize those systems. No, we are going to debate it.
We are going to debate, and the airlines are going to come back and
tell us that airline traffic cannot stand this fee, they cannot stand
this fee so we cannot federalize this system. We had better do this,
but we do not do it in this legislation. Why? Because we had to rush
home last weekend. Why? Because we have to rush home this weekend.
Supposedly we are in a setting here where we have to take these
extraordinary measures to deal with the Nation's business, and all the
Congress can think about is getting out of town. We ought to take care
of the American people. We ought to take care of the American people
who lost their jobs.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation has gone through some of the most
extraordinary days in our over 200-year history. A week ago Tuesday, we
saw the harshest, most strident, barbaric attack on the civilian
population of this country that we have ever seen. We have, over the
last several days, been working together in a bipartisan way to deal
with the challenge that lies ahead. Last night in this Chamber, the
President of the United States stood right behind me and delivered an
extraordinarily eloquent statement about the challenges that are ahead
of us. As he did that, I was very pleased to see enthusiastic support
from Democrats and Republicans, and the American people.
Last Friday night, an attempt was made to deal with part of this
challenge by addressing the concerns of an industry that is critically
important to the economic survival of the United States. I am not one
who is a proponent of having the Federal Government subsidize or in any
way underwrite a private sector entity. I happen to have very
libertarian leanings as a Republican. I want to get the government out
as much as we possibly can, especially when it comes to the
marketplace. But a week ago Tuesday, following the tragic incident at
the World
[[Page H5877]]
Trade Center, here at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania, all planes
that were headed, incidentally, to my State of California, we tried our
darndest to look at ways in which we could deal with this challenge.
Obviously, a decision was made by the Federal Government that we had
to, on Tuesday, close down our Nation's airports.
In closing down those airports, we have seen figures of several
hundred million dollars a day lost by the airline industry. That was a
decision that the Federal Government made to close down those airports.
A private sector entity was impacted by that. It happens to be the
industry which allows for the flow of goods and services, and people,
around this country and throughout the world.
In the 21st century, it is obvious that air travel is going to be
critical for our Nation's survival. We have to rely on that. We cannot
go back to simply rail, truck, car or bus travel. We need to have a
viable airline industry.
Last Friday night, an attempt was made to put into place a package
that would provide an immediate influx of cash so that the airline
industry did not go under, and provide some loan guarantees that would
help sustain the industry for a longer period of time. I do not support
the idea of rewarding any entity for bad practices, unwise business
practices of the past. But I will say that when Speaker Hastert and
Minority Leader Gephardt and our team, with the other body, proceeded
to work on this package late into last night, my friend the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has been very involved in this, many Members
have been involved again on both sides of the aisle, a decision was
made that we would try to ensure that we did not see the airline
industry in this country go under.
That is exactly what we are trying to do right now, because a
decision that was made by the Federal Government jeopardized the
ability of this industry to have the flow of revenue that it needed to
survive and continue to allow people and goods to move throughout this
country. So that is why when the package, after having worked on it for
a week, it was a week ago tonight that the first attempt was made to
move this package through, and many Members, as I said, have been
involved in this, we came together late last night. And I want to, as I
often do here, thank both Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on
Rules who worked late into the night in preparation for this and then
reconvened early this morning to proceed again, and we have just now
completed our work in the Committee on Rules, reporting out this bill
which I believe is a very positive and important step.
Now, as we held our hearing upstairs this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I
should say that there were a wide range of very important and
understandable concerns that have been raised. There is a great deal of
pain that these barbarians have inflicted on the American people and on
the civilized world. We want to do everything that we possibly can to
mitigate the level of that pain. But right now we are here dealing with
a very important industry that needs to remain viable for the economic
stability of the United States and the world. That is why this effort
is focused on this industry.
Again, there are loads of very important concerns that have been
raised and will be continually raised from both sides of the aisle. But
at this point, I recommend, Mr. Speaker, that we pass, first of all,
the provision that allows us to proceed with the same-day consideration
of this rule, then pass the rule, and move ahead and pass this bill so
we can send that very important signal to the American people that we
are going to ensure that we can see that very important flow of
individuals and of goods and of services throughout this country.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on this first rule that allows us to bring up
consideration of the rule for the legislation.
{time} 1800
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that we must
help the airline industry, but I have some real problems with the way
we are going about it.
This package says we are going to give roughly $15 billion in
assistance to the airline industry, and I have no objection to that so
long as it is a fair package, but there is nothing in this package for
the people who work for those airlines; nothing by way of extension of
unemployment compensation; nothing by way of extending their health
benefits under COBRA, even though they would have to pay for those
benefits themselves; nothing by way of additional training for them.
People are saying, ``Oh, there is a limit of $300,000 in this bill on
executive compensation for airline executives.'' That is not true. This
proposal says that if you made more than $300,000 last year, you cannot
earn more than you made last year and have your company eligible for
this loan guarantee. That means that one airline CEO can collect $13
million in compensation next year. Another, $11 million. Meanwhile, for
workers, there is zip, zero.
If we are going to have everybody get into the lifeboats, we ought to
have enough lifeboats. We should not be like the Titanic. There ought
to be enough lifeboats so that not just investors and CEOs but also
workers get some help out of their government. We ought to be willing
to stay here Saturday and Sunday and Monday, however long it takes, to
put this package together.
There is much talk of unity. God knows how much we need it. But if
you want unity, the best way to get it is to convince all Americans
that they are going to be treated equally. Do not tell the workers of
this country that they will be considered as afterthoughts, and that is
what has happened.
Yes, we have an urgent need to act, but we also have an urgent need
to provide fairness and justice. That is what the American people
deserve. This package does not do that. I desperately do not want to
vote against it, but it is very difficult to vote for it when it has
this kind of rampant unfairness.
This bill ought to go back to committee. Our leaders on both sides of
the aisle have enough talent and enough dedication to take a couple of
extra days and put this package together so that everyone, everyone is
helped by it, not just those who have the best connections with
Washington.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds) for bringing this matter to consideration on the
floor.
I am chairman of the Travel and Tourism Caucus, and I can underscore
the concern in this building today is to get the economy moving. Now, I
respect the concerns of the other Members of this body who are worried
about employees and safeguards for employees. I struggle with those
issues, too; but if we do not deal with this issue rather quickly,
there will not be employees at all, regardless of the efforts of those
to protect them in this bill.
The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 1,200 points this week. I
left my home a moment ago to watch the news out of BWI airport talking
about massive layoffs. Wall Street is looking and the major banks
around the globe are watching what we do tonight to decide whether any
credit will be available for airlines.
So we have a real choice here today. We have a choice of helping
immediately, move some economic stimulus, loan guarantees to the
airline industry or we can sit here and twiddle our thumbs and assume
that this will fix itself. Wall Street is saying it will not.
I can assure you, based on the economic model that I am seeing in
Florida, Hawaii, California, New York, Texas, Arkansas, I do not have
time to go over 50 States, but stick around because the economic pain
is real, not imagined.
One of the prior speakers said somehow that we rushed out of this
building last week and we are trying to rush out of the building this
week. I take great exception to that because many of us have worked and
labored and toiled to try and find some opportunity to provide comfort
for those in New York, those at the Pentagon; and we have focused our
efforts on both relief and remedy for those. And we have also given the
President of the United States the unified support of the Congress and
the people of this country to endeavor to try and rid the world of
terrorism.
[[Page H5878]]
I would love to obviously have a lot of time to debate some of these
issues. God knows we would love to sit around and hammer things out,
knock the table, and protect everyone in the room. I mean this in all
sincerity, that we need to put this underlying legislation on the floor
now today and move expeditiously so that on Monday next when the
markets open there is a safety net under the structure of the airline
industry.
Believe me, I complained to many of these same operators yesterday
that were in my office that own the major carriers, and I was worried
about baggage carriers and line workers and fuelers and mechanics and
flight attendants and captains and co-captains. I worry about the
treatment of individuals.
I worry about the treatment received by individual Americans as they
traversed this country just but a few weeks ago and complained about
how they were treated and talked about airline passenger rules or bill
of rights. And, sure, I would like to sweep up some of these things and
spend hours and days and weeks on finding a perfect solution here,
because I know with both sides working, we can.
But, regrettably, based on this economic crisis we face, we either
provide the guarantee, as we did in the Chrysler Corporation bailout
years ago that many objected to vehemently, that Members from Detroit
insisted we needed; and, thank God, the Congress responded, because,
God knows, Chrysler not only succeeded, but survived and excelled and
hired millions of American workers to be on their assembly line.
So the choice is clear today: move consideration or find huge massive
layoffs. So the employees you think you are protecting under the debate
today will be those that are, in fact, given pink slips on Monday,
because credit will be shut off, airline employees will be going home,
no one will be flying, and the economy of the United States of America
will grind to an absolute halt.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill should not be coming up now. It is not ready.
It does not deal with the fundamental problem. Yes, there is an urgent
need to strengthen the airline industry. We need to do this in a
bipartisan way. We need to do it urgently. There is much in this bill,
$15 billion in direct aid and loan guarantees, and that is good. You
will hear about perspective liability and retrospective liability. I
will not talk about that.
It does not include, however, anything, about the needs of working
families--the baggage handlers, the flight attendants, the pilots, the
agents, the clerks--unless you consider executive salary packages of
$13 million as dealing with the needs of working families.
But let us face facts. What is the real problem now? People are not
flying. Why are they not flying? They are concerned about airline
security.
This bill has two sentences about airline security. One sentence says
that last week we said we were going to do something. The other
sentence says that in the future we are going to do something.
If we want to revitalize the airline industry, we have to get people
back in the planes. How are we going to get them back in the planes?
Certainly we cannot do it unless we reassure them about the security of
the airlines. The fundamental problem we are facing right now is people
are not flying.
Yes, we have an urgent need. We should stay here this weekend,
Saturday, Sunday, Monday, if necessary, and get it right. This is an
important industry. It is critical to all other aspects of our society.
We should do it, and we should take the time to do it right.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise encouraging all my
colleagues to vote for this rule, which allows same day consideration,
and then the subsequent rule on the bill, and certainly passage of the
final bill.
This is the first bite of the apple. There have been a number of
Members who have risen who want to do more. We are going to have plenty
of opportunity to do more, but we are clearly in a crisis situation
right now.
I know the impact of this issue in the State that I represent,
Florida, is gigantic. We have hotels in Florida that are virtually
empty, rental car fleets that are virtually at a standstill, theme
parks and other tourist attractions that are empty. We are going to be
seeing layoffs in a lot of other industries, and all of the myriad
other issues, airline safety, fair treatment for employees, we are
going to have an opportunity to take those issues up.
I will tell you an issue I am very concerned about. We have
indemnification in this underlying bill. We indemnify the airlines, but
not the manufacturers. Some people might say how ridiculous; what trial
attorney would sue a manufacturer of an airplane in a hijack situation?
Mr. Speaker, it has happened. They have tried to sue manufacturers of
airplanes in hijacking situations. So we are going to have to go back
and revisit indemnification.
We are going to have lots of opportunities to deal with these issues.
But this is the right thing to do at this hour. We need to do this for
America. It is not for the airline industries, it is for Florida,
California, Washington State, it is for the United States of America.
Let us pass this rule, and pass the next rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the rule for same day
consideration, because I think if this bill were not considered today
and were considered tomorrow, we could get a much, much better bill in
several respects. I am going to vote against the second rule for
consideration of the bill, because I think if we were allowed to offer
amendments to the bill, we would end up with a much, much better bill.
But if, at the end of the day, those rules are passed and this bill
comes before us, I am going to vote for the bill. Not because I think
it is a perfect bill. It can be improved by adding security provisions.
It can be improved by adding employee assistance provisions, which I
think are gravely needed and we must pass, whether we pass them tonight
or in the near future. It can be improved with amendments regarding
executive compensation and a number of other things.
But we must get the airlines back on a solid footing, and we must
provide an assurance to the families of the victims of this tragic
incident that their interests, their financial interests, will be taken
care of. Those two things are in this bill.
So my opposition to the bill really is about the things that are not
in it, which I hope the majority will see fit to bring a bill on next
week. I understand that is being considered. I think it is absolutely
imperative that we deal with employee assistance provisions, whether in
this bill or in some other bill. And if we were not rushing to judgment
tonight, we could do it in the context of this bill. I think we are
missing an opportunity.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule, the subsequent rule, and
the final bill. As a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation and as a
Member that has answered numerous questions over the last 2 days, and
in light of some of the things that have been said, I think it is
important that we be very honest and very candid in our debate today.
Mr. Speaker, safety was considered first priority to this bill, and
any reference to the contrary is incorrect.
{time} 1815
In fact, the $5 billion infusion is in part because the FAA shut down
the American airlines, all of them, until such time as new security
procedures were put in place, which, in fact, have resulted in the
arrest and capture and now the jailing of certain suspects against the
United States of America.
Secondly, it should be known that sky marshals are already on United
States aircraft and additional marshals are already in training. For
someone to send the signal to America that we
[[Page H5879]]
have not paid attention to safety is wrong. For someone to say that
executive compensation or management compensation, one must be
considered over the other, I ask a simple question to those who object.
There will be no compensation to anyone if America's airlines fail and
are grounded.
For those that worry about the travel agent and the hotel and
Disneyland, in my city, my district, tourism is number two. There are
no safe airlines flying. There is no safe financial underfooting on
those airlines, there is no other ancillary business.
I respect genuine debate, but America needs to know this Congress
dealt with safety first. Second, its interest is for all workers,
management or otherwise; and third, to ensure the dominos do not fall,
we must stabilize the lead domino in a principle industry of American
commerce that carries 40 percent of all U.S. exports today.
So I conclude, I am prejudiced. I am for this. I ran a business for
33 years. I watched America save the jobs of Chrysler's workers by this
Congress underwriting loan guarantees for a period of time for them to
recover. I watched them save the city of New York, the one we all cry
for today, for that same reason, and Lockheed Aircraft that builds the
planes that are about to go and fly. Now for us to quibble over
perceptions or send a mixed signal that safety is not first or that we
have not given this deliberation is, I would submit, incorrect and
unfair.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, we do have a national emergency. We do have
an industry that we need to be working in America. But those
emergencies should not be an excuse to stampede the democratic process,
to rush through a bill which has not been considered duly, prohibits
amendments, prohibits the process from taking place. I object to a
process when we do have the time. The markets will not open until
Monday morning. We have time to look at this.
As John Sweeney says, who is the president of the AFL-CIO, ``If
Members of Congress fail to include relief to workers in the airline
bailout bill, it will be an unconscionable, divisive and economically
irresponsible omission.''
He writes, ``Over the past ten days, our Nation has been reminded
again and again by the grim and inspiring images of rescue and relief
workers that it is working people who are the first to step up to
respond to their neighbors, their community and their country. And it
is workers and their families who are taking a direct and immediate hit
from the terrorist attacks and the resulting airline crisis. A hit that
will have a rippling, destabilizing effect on the economy unless it is
addressed.
``Over the past week, the AFL-CIO, airline unions and congressional
leaders have invested a huge amount of work into developing a worker
relief package that includes unemployment, job training and health
benefit protections to workers laid off as a result of the financial
crisis in the airline industry. Extensive work has also gone into
developing additional assistance to workers throughout the economy and
that package must be acted upon soon.
``But now, Members of Congress appear poised to stiff airline
industry workers in the bailout bill, even as they award protections to
airline executives for their golden parachutes.
``Any Member of either party who casts a vote to leave workers out of
the relief bill will be voting to betray American workers in the
bipartisan spirit of our last ten days.''
That is a letter that John Sweeney wrote to the Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I would add that we have time to right this wrong. Let
us do it please.
The letter referred to is as follows:
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
statement by afl-cio president john j. sweeney regarding congressional
decision on worker relief package--airline bailout bill september 21,
2001
If members of Congress fail to include relief to workers in
the airline bailout bill, it will be an unconscionable,
divisive and economically irresponsible omission.
Over the past 10 days, our nation has been reminded again
and again by the grim and inspiring images of rescue and
relief workers that it is working people who are the first to
step up to respond to their neighbors, their community and
their country. And it is workers and their families who are
taking a direct and immediate hit from the terrorist attacks
and the resulting airline crisis--a hit that will also have a
rippling, destabilizing effect on the economy unless it is
addressed.
Over the past week, the AFL-CIO, airline unions and
congressional leaders have invested a huge amount of work
into developing a worker relief package that includes
unemployment, job training and health benefits protections to
workers laid off as a result of the financial crisis in the
airline industry. Extensive work has also gone into
developing additional assistance to workers throughout the
economy and that package must be acted up soon.
But now, members of Congress appear poised to stiff airline
industry workers in the bailout bill--even as they award
protections to airline executives for their golden
parachutes.
Any member of either party who casts a vote to leave
workers out of the relief bill will be voting to betray
American workers and the bipartisan spirit of the last week.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would remind all
Members of the rule and Speaker's directive regarding the use of
cellular telephones on the House floor.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
underlying bill. It is well intentioned and relief to the airline
industry is necessary to keep these vital transportation links
operating. But its provisions are so fatally flawed that it will
disrupt other parts of the economy and its victim compensation
provisions are unfair and set an expensive precedent which Congress
will rue in the future.
First, the liability limitation provisions transfer the airlines'
contingent liabilities to others with devastating implications on other
segments of the economy. It is fine to limit airlines' liability, but
this will simply put others on the hook.
In addition to United and American Airlines, who will have limited
liability under this bill, plaintiffs' lawyers will also likely sue
Boeing, which manufactured the four planes, General Electric or Pratt
and Whitney who probably made the engines, the Port Authority which is
the owner of the World Trade Center, whatever company made the steel
which collapsed, and on and on. These companies' liability is not
limited by this bill.
While the airlines will not face bankruptcy as a result of September
11, should this bill pass, its failure to limit others' liability will
mean Congress will need to pass corrective legislation again and again
to protect American companies and their workers' jobs because this bill
did not do it right.
Remember, any company having a substantial contingent liability will
not be able to borrow money from the banks to keep itself afloat.
The formula that compensates the airlines is not fair either. The
United States Government does have a moral responsibility to make whole
the airlines for the losses they suffered as a result of the FAA
closing U.S. air space and the delays caused by airplane closures and
heightened security. But that is not all this bill does. It makes
payments based upon how many seat-miles each carrier has. That amounts
to a subsidy and gives a premium to those carriers based not on their
losses caused by the tragedies of September 11 but how big they are and
how many seats they have.
Finally, this bill creates a new entitlement program to pay families
of victims of this tragedy through taxpayers' dollars.
No entitlement was enacted by Congress to compensate victims of the
Oklahoma City bombing, earthquakes in California, hurricanes in
Florida, and floods along the Mississippi River. If this entitlement is
approved, does Congress really want to say no to the victims of future
tragedies, whether as a result of natural or man-made disasters? If a
disaster strikes in any of our hometowns, how can we explain voting for
an entitlement in this bill, but not for our own constituents? Stop and
think of the precedent this bill sets when a future disaster strikes.
There is plenty money available to compensate the families of the
victims of September 11. Mr. Speaker, $20 billion has already been
appropriated for relief. The President has signed legislation to speed
up payments to the families of police and firefighters killed in
[[Page H5880]]
the line of duty, and the Crime Victims Compensation Fund has over $1
billion already available for disbursal. Millions come from FEMA and
the Department of Health and Human Services and elsewhere, and there
will be tens of billions of dollars from insurance and those liable.
But stop, let us do this right. Let us vote this bill down and come
back and address these very legitimate problems.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as our country faces some very difficult
times, we are going to hear a lot about shared sacrifice. Shared
sacrifice is firefighters charging into the World Trade Center to
rescue people they had never met and dying in the effort. Shared
sacrifice, we are told, is the unfortunate news that over 100,000
workers are going to lose their jobs for the good of their companies.
Shared sacrifice, it is clear, means that our sons and daughters,
mothers and fathers in the military are going to be sent into battle.
But today, in the first economic bill to deal with the September 11
tragedy, we see that there are limits to shared sacrifice.
Under this airline bailout bill, senior executives will be able to
continue to earn millions of dollars in salary and other compensation.
In one case, this bill will permit a senior executive to earn over $34
million and, if he leaves the company, to receive up to $70 million in
severance benefits. This is inexcusable, it is obscene, it exploits a
painful tragedy, and it makes a mockery of the idea of shared
sacrifice.
We cannot change this bill; but we can be morally outraged by this
inequity, and we can ask the airline CEOs to do what this bill does
not. They are asking taxpayers for billions of dollars in help, and
then they will be firing thousands of their workers. At this time, they
should publicly adopt policies that limit executive compensation to
reasonable levels. That will honor shared sacrifice and the sacrifices
so many others have made and will make.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, during the last 10 days, the American people and Members
of the Congress have been in emotional shock from the terrible loss of
life and tragedy that struck. We are all together struggling and trying
to determine the most effective way to end terrorism and to punish
those people who committed this atrocious act.
But on the issue of how we can deal with the airlines and how as a
Nation we deal with the perhaps coming recession, I do not think that
there should be a lot of debate. The American people want to believe
that we are all in this together; and when they see that 100,000
airline workers are laid off in an industry that is crumbling, they not
only want to restore that industry, but they want to make sure that the
workers who have been running those industries are treated fairly. They
do not want to read in the papers that they are providing taxpayer
dollars so that CEOs can end up with tens and tens of millions of
dollars in executive compensation but, at the same time, there is
apparently no money available to provide health insurance for workers
who were laid off. They want to know that the package that we are
passing is fair in terms of providing security for the people who will
get on the planes. Where is the definition of what we will be doing in
terms of security?
Mr. Speaker, we are moving into an economic recession; and in a
certain sense, this legislation is the first bill that we will be
looking at as to how we are going to respond; and the American people
are demanding that, if we are in this together, we have got to protect
the working people, we have got to protect the most vulnerable people;
and this legislation does not do that.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis in public confidence in our airline
industry. Before September 11, fuel prices were rising, business travel
was declining, and some of our airlines in my State had serious
financial problems.
{time} 1830
After September 11, the government ordered the grounding of flights
for several days, which caused considerable financial loss to all
airlines. Now the flights have resumed. Consumers have been slow to
return to the air. Therefore, the financial problems of our airlines
have become more severe, and they need help from the Federal
Government.
Indeed, the Federal Government should help the airlines, but this
bill does not adequately address the economic and security issues
resulting from and exacerbated by the terrorist hijacking and the
crashes on September 11. A Federal bailout of our airlines alone will
not restore public confidence and increase ridership in our airlines
which is, indeed, the basis for the airlines' long-term security.
Simply stated, people are afraid to fly. In order to restore public
confidence, we should move responsibility for aviation security from
airlines and their subcontractors to the Federal Government, employing
trained security experts. We should do this immediately. In this bill,
at least make an indication we are committed to it, not sometime in the
future but in this bill.
The tragic events of last Tuesday should be a wake-up call to this
Nation. No longer can we afford to rely upon low-wage unskilled
workers, with an astonishingly high turnover annually, to manage our
first line of defense against a repeat of events of September 11. We
should act now to federalize airport security. This probably will
substantially increase public confidence and ridership, and increase
financial stability and the cash flow to our airlines.
In addition to the hardships suffered by our airlines during the
crisis, thousands of airline workers have lost their jobs or may lose
their jobs in the future. Thousands of airport vendors, hotels,
tourism, business, and small business, mostly, also are suffering
economically and need help from the Federal Government.
We should be careful how we respond here, because we must respond to
others as well; not that we should not respond, but this response is
insufficient. The workers and small business operators in communities
all across our Nation constitute the backbone of their local economies.
These workers, tens of thousands of them, may be expendable from any
airline, but they are essential to their families and to their
communities.
Mr. Speaker, we should vote against this rule, and we should also
vote against this bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton), who represents the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, one
of the busiest in the world.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York, the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, D-FW airport, except for one runway, is totally within
the Sixth District of Texas, which happens to be the district that I am
privileged to represent. There were over 40,000 American Airlines and
Delta Airlines and various other airline employees that work at that
hub airport.
We know the tragic events that happened on September 11 in which four
American flag carriers, two Delta and two American Airlines, went into
the Trade Center, the Pentagon, or into the countryside in
Pennsylvania. At D-FW as we speak, it is an airport that is operating
at less than 50 percent capacity. The flights that go in that airport
are operating about at about 30 percent capacity.
American, United, and other airlines have laid off tens of thousands
of people this week. This is not the time to argue about the perfect
airline relief bill. We have a very reasonable bill before us. It has
been hammered out in negotiation between the minority, the majority,
the airline industry, the airport associations, and the White House. We
need to get the bill on the floor. The first thing we have to do is
pass this rule. Then we have to pass the second rule. Then we have to
pass the bill.
[[Page H5881]]
I have an airport security task force at D-FW that has been operating
for over a year and a half to come up with a series of recommendations
about how to increase airport security. Most of those recommendations,
until last week, dealt with increasing security to prevent illegal
drugs from going through our hub airports, but many of them are
applicable to terrorism.
I am very willing to continue the dialogue with the Department of
Transportation, the FAA, and all the other interested parties, but I am
not willing to get into a contest where we refuse to bring up
absolutely necessary legislation.
I would urge my colleagues, let us pass this rule, let us pass the
second rule, and then let us pass the bill. If we need to come back in
a month, 2 months, or whatever, let us do it, but let us not take an
industry that is on its knees and force it to be flat on its back. Let
us help the airlines and the economy. Pass these rules and pass this
bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is an
important first step toward protecting the viability of our Nation's
air transportation system. For that important reason, I am going to
support these rules and support this legislation today.
But, Mr. Speaker, I also want to send a very clear message to the
airlines that will receive these taxpayers' funds today. That is that
those of us who represent hundreds of thousands of people from mid-
sized cities and rural areas will be watching to see whether they take
our Federal tax dollars in one hand and with the other hand cut off
service to middle America.
That should not happen, it cannot happen; and if it were to happen, I
think when the second round of this airline support legislation
inevitably comes back before this House, it would be very difficult to
encourage and convince the taxpayers of middle America and rural
America to continue supporting airline viability if there is no
viability in rural areas because they have already cut off service.
With that caveat, we will support this legislation, and hope Members
on both sides of the aisle will do so, as well.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in
support of the bill. I appreciate some of the concerns that our
colleagues have brought up. It is a shame that we did not address
employee issues and security issues. Quite frankly, I think we had the
time to do it, but we did not.
I want to focus on some areas that I had particular concern about. I,
for one, and I do not think this is a partisan issue, have had concerns
where we have the Federal Government intervening in the private
markets. The intention of giving loan guarantees in any private market
function is something the Congress should have great concerns about.
I and many Members of this body have supported that from time to time
when we have felt there are extraordinary situations, and I do think
this is an extraordinary situation. But I also think it is incumbent
upon the Members of the House and the other body to ensure that the
Federal Government, and thus the taxpayers, have an ability that we may
well be paid back if there is a problem with the extension of this
credit.
As the bill was originally drafted, quite frankly, it did not meet
that standard. So I appreciate the fact, in how I read the bill now,
that we have done a couple of things that are important. One, we
brought the fiduciary officers of the Federal Government, in effect,
the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and the Secretary of the
Treasury, as voting members into this commission, because they should
be involved in the extension of credit. That has always been the case
in any other extension of credit that I am aware of that we have done
as a government.
Number two is that we have said that they have to consider and in
fact have to have certain collateralization of the guarantee or the
credit that is extended. Many of these airlines are highly leveraged,
and there is not much that they can extend in terms of collateral, but
the use of warrants, the use of equity, the use of options is something
that is not unprecedented and is something that in fact we should
consider. I am glad it is finally in this bill.
Finally, I am glad that the bill does not include a set, specific
term, but rather gives broad discretion to the board and to the
administration in setting the terms and condition. The burden will be
on them to strike the best deal for the taxpayers, and ensuring that
this is done, but it is better than a 10-year term.
With that, I rise in strong support of the bill and ask that my
colleagues pass it.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the the
rule and in support of the underlying bill.
Last week's attacks did unspeakable damage, unspeakable harm with
great loss of life, but last week's attack underscored just how
indispensable air travel is to our economy. Since the attacks, hotel
occupancy in New York City has plummeted, restaurants are empty,
broadway shows have closed. People fly to New York from all over the
world, but right now they are scared to fly.
With the $3 billion allocated from the antiterrorism package, new
safeguards will make air travel safer, but we do not know when
passengers will return. In the meantime, if the airlines go out of
business, what will be the next business to go out of business? We will
all be out of business, and we cannot let that happen.
Supporting our airlines is also an act of patriotism. The terrorists
wanted to ground America, so we need to fly. We also need to compensate
victims, many of whom were my constituents and friends. We need to
compensate workers that are not covered in this package.
I have been assured by our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), that he will introduce a bill tomorrow which will do that,
with the support of many in the leadership on the other side of the
aisle. We need to answer this act of hostility by restoring the
friendly skies domestically, and by sending airplanes of a different
sort to get the cowards of the September 11 attack.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending President
Bush for his efforts to bring our Nation together. This is a time for
bipartisan commitment to make common cause on behalf of our country.
Yet the handling of this bill, I believe, violates that very spirit.
We now debate what is really a ``jam rule,'' jamming through this
Chamber a piece of legislation involving a tremendous expenditure of
taxpayer money without an opportunity for the Members to read and
understand the provisions; and it will be immediately followed by a
``gag rule'' that denies the Members the slightest opportunity to
improve this bill by offering amendments and strictly limits their
remarks during debate. Such parliamentary tricks, really, I think
divide us at a time when we should be coming together.
There was a plainspoken Texan who once sat in that chair, a legendary
figure who presided over this House, by the name of Sam Rayburn. He
said that, in conducting the people's business, three of the most
important words are simply ``wait a minute.'' That simple maxim I think
has never rung more true than with this piece of legislation.
At midnight last Friday, when many Members of this House were asleep,
like many members of the American public, when we had been told that
all of our regular work was completed, an attempt was made to force
through this House, in a matter of minutes, a bill that spent $15
billion, that is billion with a B, of taxpayer money, a bill composed
of a mere three pages.
All that I personally did about those three pages at that time was to
apply
[[Page H5882]]
Mr. Rayburn's three words: Wait a minute. Wait a minute, because the
bill that we had then and that we have now contains nothing meaningful,
not one word, well, a few words at the end of the bill that are
meaningless, making passing reference to previous legislation, but it
does nothing to assure the security of Americans on planes flying
across this country. That is deferred until later, instead of making it
our first priority now. We have 31 pages tonight instead of last
Friday's three pages, but those pages provide no more security for the
travelling public.
I said ``wait a minute'' because that bill did not contain protection
for the taxpayer; those three pages were only a blank check.
In that regard, I want to commend again President Bush's
administration, because had it not been for them seizing the
opportunity of these last few days and demanding an Air Transportation
Stabilization Board, it would not be in the bill. This very provision
of which the supporters tonight boast in this bill would not be there
if they had overcome my objection at midnight last week.
I said, wait a minute then, because it contained no provision to
protect those who do the hard work within our airline industry.
{time} 1845
It contained no shared sacrifice. At that time all the money could
have gone to executive compensation, to those at the top.
Tonight, now that it has been studied carefully, they put a
limitation in the bill. And do you know what that limitation is? That
limitation is that those at the top of the airline industry cannot make
any more than they did last year. Do you know how much that is? For one
fellow that is $35 million. And the poorer CEO's can only make $6
million. And so the American taxpayer is going to contribute to their
$35 million; and, oh, by the way, if they bail out this next year, they
can get up to $70 million in a golden parachute.
What about the people that cook the meals, that clean the cabins,
that stand out there and risk their lives for the safety of all of us?
What security do they get in this bill? They do not get one dime or one
plug nickel in this bill.
That is why I say it is a shame what is happening here tonight. They
got nothing last Friday, and we have come around to another Friday and
those hardworking Americans do not get the protection they need in this
bill. It is wrong for this Congress to help those at the top and forget
those who are doing the hard work out there. And we have been told in
the interim that 100,000 Americans working for the airlines will
probably be laid off even if the airlines get every dime for which they
are asking.
It is not my intent to demonize this industry or question the motives
of those who have come forward. This is a vital industry to our
country. I am ready to help it. I am ready to respond. I am ready to
respond this very minute. But crafting this bill has not been an open
inclusive process. Rather it has been one closed-door session after
another where the taxpayer rights, the safety of the American public,
and the rights of American workers have been ignored.
I'm voting no because it's not right to put those at the top in first
class seats and leave everybody else--the taxpayers, the flying public,
and the workers out on the tarmac without even a bag of peanuts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The time of the gentleman
has expired. All time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has
expired. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to note that the previous speaker indicated that some Members were
sleeping last Friday.
I want to remind Members of the history of last week. We were
actually in regular order of business. There was a unanimous consent
request brought, as the gentleman knows, because he was here as part of
the debate that was under consideration.
And the second thing the gentleman referred to was the language
regarding executive salaries. I would like the record to so record that
the executive salaries language that capped the executive salaries was
included at the request of a minority ranking member, and that is why
that language appears as it does in the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who has spent countless hours on this legislation
in the spirit of compromise with both Republican and Democratic Members
and leadership.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker, in the last week, is that 100,000
layoff announcements have been issued. I do not know how many fewer of
those would have been announced if we had acted last week, but I think
fewer than that. And if we do not act this week, there will be more
layoffs next week.
We have had a whole week to discuss this bill. People have suggested
that was not a bipartisan process. I can seldom think of a time in the
House, in the few years I have been here, of a more bipartisan process,
where the minority leader in the House, the Speaker of the House, the
two leaders of the other body both agreed totally on what was going to
go in this bill.
That does not mean they think that is the only thing that needs to be
done, nor should anybody suggest for a minute that anybody on this
floor thinks this will be the last thing that is done. Just because our
leaders on both sides of the aisle were for this does not mean that is
all they are for. It does not mean we will not hear even later in this
debate an understanding that there will be more legislation. But what
it does mean is that if this rule is not approved and the second rule
is not approved and the bill is not approved, after a week, a full week
to come together, for our leaders to come together with the very best
thing they could all agree on, is that some time this week airlines
would no longer have insurance.
The unknown liability of two airlines who were victims of terrorists
last week would make it impossible, in all likelihood, for them to get
access to the financial markets they need to get access to. And by this
time next week, planes all over America would be sitting on runways.
Nobody will be flying if we do not address these critical issues.
Airlines cannot fly without liability coverage.
We address those issues here. Two airlines would not be able to have
access to capital with some unknown question about their liability. We
address those issues here. Victims could not begin to get access to
compensation through a special procedure that is addressed in this
bill.
This is a critical time. There will be more legislation that relates
to this industry. Many of the points that have been made here tonight
can be addressed. Those points were not made during the week in these
discussions. Now, that does not mean they cannot be made; that does not
mean they cannot be made or will not be made in the next few days. It
does mean that we need to stop the layoffs now, we need to keep these
planes in the air, and we need to keep this irreplaceable industry a
viable part of our economy.
We do this with the action we take here tonight. I urge my colleagues
to vote for the rules and for the bill.
point of order
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege on
the previous statement of the gentleman. If I could state that, or I
could ask to have his words taken down, if you would give me a moment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman that
there is no point of personal privilege based on the debate which is in
order at this time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, then, if the gentleman made a statement that was
untrue about the position of the Democratic leaders and basically
directly casting aspersion on them by saying that they did not raise
the issues raised by many Members here on the floor in those
discussions, and we know that they did, is there a process under which
I could have his words taken down or reviewed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is certainly the right of any Member
during debate to ask that a Member's words be taken down. At that point
the words must be transcribed and read to the
[[Page H5883]]
House and the Chair will rule upon them.
Mr. DeFAZIO. But what my question is, since he made an assertion
about the Democratic leaders, which I know and others know to be
untrue, and about the points we are making on the floor, that these
issues were not raised in the negotiations, is there some objection
that I could lodge against such an untrue statement on the floor of the
House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to rule or respond in
anticipation of the actual words being read back to the House.
Mr. DeFAZIO. At this point, hopefully, we will get a chance to rebut
those untrue words in future debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that if I
inadvertently suggested that anybody had not addressed these issues in
good faith all week, or suggested that all of our leaders had not
worked hard to make this happen, or that the issues, and I believe in
fact I said I was confident that later in this debate our leaders would
come to the floor, I meant to say and indicate they had discussed this;
they had an understanding of how this would be handled in the future.
I certainly meant no suggestion of any kind that our leaders had not
worked hard; that they, and that all sides are not concerned about
these issues. If I misspoke in any way, I certainly did not intend to.
Because I think there has been hard and dedicated work put in on this
by all sides this week.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the other body intends to
deem this as passed with no debate, because I think they recognize the
seriousness and the cooperation, the unity that has been the hallmark
here since September 11 between both bodies of the Congress and the
administration. And there should be ample debate. We are trying to next
move into a rule that will provide debate on the bill; and, if it is
passed, we will move forward to the debate on the issue at hand.
Today, we need to come together again to consider a critical piece of
legislation to further guide our Nation and its citizens through this
crisis. Now is not the time for stalling or dilatory tactics. This
legislation has had constant participation by legislative leaders on
both sides of the aisle, both Houses, and with the administration. It
is imperative that we move forward with this urgent message and this
measure before us tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 303,
nays 107, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 345]
YEAS--303
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--107
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Becerra
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lipinski
Luther
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--20
Bereuter
Berman
Carson (IN)
Castle
Conyers
Cox
Deutsch
Dingell
Dooley
Fossella
Harman
Hefley
Holden
Issa
Linder
Miller (FL)
Moran (VA)
Schaffer
Towns
Waters
{time} 1915
Mr. KUCINICH and Mr. BAIRD changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. SCHIFF and Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H5884]]
____________________