[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]]



                          ____________________