[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 155 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10181-H10189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2115, VISION 100-CENTURY OF AVIATION
REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), one of the outstanding members
of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for bringing this
legislation to the floor, and also for his courage and fortitude in
standing up over several weeks of sometimes personal attacks. In trying
to bring this legislation to the floor, the gentleman has shown
remarkable composure and leadership.
As every member of the Subcommittee on Aviation knows, and I hope the
Members in this Chamber appreciate, this conference report contains
many provisions that will be helpful to the ailing aviation industry.
Of particular interest in my district, and districts and airports all
over this Nation, is a provision in this bill that sets up an airport
security improvement grant program so that airports
[[Page H10182]]
can replace baggage conveyer systems, reconfigure terminal baggage
areas, pursue projects that will enable the TSA to deploy explosive
detection systems, and fund other airport security capital improvement
projects.
This grant program allows the TSA to issues letters of intent, or
LOIs, so that airports can pursue security projects quickly and
efficiently. Denver International, my airport, recently received an LOI
in the amount of $67.5 million. With this LOI, Denver International has
aggressively pursued plans to install an in-line baggage screening
system. These efforts will improve the safety and efficiency of the
airport.
This bill also decreases the LOI local match for Denver from 25
percent to 10 percent reflecting the will of Congress that national
security projects should be paid for by the Federal Government. This
change in the local share will help the Denver International Airport
tremendously.
Finally, with regard to the AIP authorization within this bill,
Denver International also receives $5.3 million per year in AIP
allotment. Reauthorizing AIP will allow the airport to address other
safety and capacity needs. These are just a few of the reasons why I
stand in strong support of the legislation and urge its passage.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for our
committee. I have been on this committee for 11 years, and my
constituents always ask, how are things going in Washington? I say it
is like swimming with the sharks; but today, it is a shark attack. This
conference report is a shark attack on the people of this great
country.
Members travel at least twice a week, sometimes four times a week. We
have put a lot of money in the aviation industry. In fact, over $18
billion.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this bill, but this
privatization of FAA is a poison pill. It is a poison pill for the
traveling public. I have one question to ask: I want to know which one
of the President's campaign contributors wants to run the national air
traffic controller towers, is Halliburton doing the control tower work
now?
The American people deserve a clean bill that does not compromise
their safety and security. This bill does not do that. I want my
colleagues to vote down this very dangerous bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this conference
report, and I will get to why I am going to do it in a minute, but
before I do, I want to talk about the process that has gone on.
When a bill leaves the House in a certain condition, and the certain
condition in this case was the protection of the air traffic control
system, and the Senate with the Lautenberg amendment does the same
thing and goes a little further. When a bill goes to conference and
comes back looking different, we are left on our side with the
conclusion that can only come from one place.
As a Member of this body, it concerns me that we need to have, and
this message is really for my leadership, we are a coequal branch of
the United States Government. And if we are just going to accede to
what it is that the administration wants to do, I, as a Republican,
have difficulty.
I listened carefully to this debate, and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica) is right, during the Clinton administration the contract
tower program was used extensively by the Clinton administration, and
under the Bush administration, there have been no privatizations. The
executive order that President Clinton issued as he left office,
countermanded by President Bush, is why we find ourselves here today.
The contract tower program, if run responsibly, does not mean the
death of the aviation system in this country. But I would suggest, and
again to my leadership, this is not about, and it never was about, the
69 towers. It is about the belief by Members on the other side of the
aisle and by Members on this side, today it is 69 small airport towers,
tomorrow it is Davis-Bacon, the next day it is the privatization and
contracting out of the Federal workforce. There comes a point where
enough has to be enough.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the bill. As to why I am going to
vote for the bill, I was asked to get the 69 towers out of the bill,
and I am not taking credit for that, but I went to my leadership with
others, and this recommittal does that. I gave my word to the
leadership, and I am going to keep my word and vote for the bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to commend the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his conscience-stricken
statement and for his ever-conscience-driven conduct in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think there might be something in this
legislation more onerous than the privatization caper, as referred to
about a half hour ago, and that is that the FAA reauthorization bill
conference report contains a provision that gives foreign airlines,
including obviously Air China, virtually total access to the U.S.
domestic air cargo markets through the Alaskan gateway, in
contravention of the very long-standing policy accepted by both
Republican and Democratic administrations.
Here is the catch: There is no reciprocal benefit for American
carriers and their employees, nor is there any provision for the United
States to collect one dime in taxes on the millions of dollars of
revenue that these foreign airlines will earn by operating in our
domestic markets, and that is a fact. There is nothing in the
legislation. This is one-sided legislation. It will take our Nation's
air transport industry and its employees in the wrong direction. I
think it is wrong.
Now, we have heard a lot of pontificating in the last month,
particularly from the other side and even from the administration,
about let us make trade fair, let us have parity in our commerce with
other nations. Where is the parity in this bill? This is another
foreign giveaway. Let us call it for what it is.
Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle is good at it, and I have to
give them credit. They hide out and speak out of both sides of their
mouth about trying to protect American workers, and at the same time we
are doing this kind of legislation; that is the onerous part of this
legislation. It could be far worse and far more damaging than the
privatization issue.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) brought up the name of Alaska, I wish he
understood the reasons this is in there. The gentleman talks about
jobs. He may not have been to Alaska, but Alaska is in a unique
position for refueling. That is something that is very important to my
airport. Already, the airlines the gentleman is talking about have gone
to Vancouver and solicited bids to land in Vancouver, break down their
cargo and ship it to the United States. We are part of the United
States.
The difference between survival of the airport in Alaska, in
Anchorage, is this part of this amendment. If it was not adopted, we
would lose more than 400 jobs, 400 American jobs. And yes, I can say it
is not point to point. These planes will come in, the cargo will be
broken down and the planes will be refueled and sent back. The shipment
will then be taken by Northwest and other airlines to other parts of
the United States. It will create jobs, it will not lose jobs in
Alaska.
The gentleman talks about foreign. If the gentleman wants them to go
to Canada, that is what will happen if Members vote against this bill.
My airport will not survive. This is one of the biggest money makers
for my airport, and to have someone say this is going to give jobs to
foreigners is nonsense.
{time} 1800
We are different. We are closer to the Orient. We are not New York or
New Jersey, which is about the size, by the way, of Kodiak Island. Our
survival is the Orient market. That is what we are working on. This is
what this bill does.
[[Page H10183]]
By the way, this is not my amendment. I am defending it because my
senior Senator insisted upon it in the conference. We are a conference,
and this is what this product is all about. Some may not agree with it,
but I am saying it is about the survival of my airport.
Just keep in mind, I hear about this, I am concerned about some of
the misinformation coming from certain groups about the damage this
will do to airlines in this Nation. It will not do so. It will benefit
labor. It will benefit the workers in Alaska, and it will benefit my
State of Alaska. That is what I am elected for.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I respect the
statement of our chairman of the full committee, but this again is an
example of the discussion we could have and should have had in a real
House-Senate conference.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me express my
appreciation for the kind of camaraderie we have on the committee. This
is out of character for us to be on the floor discussing something in
these tones. However, when we do not follow the rules and do not allow
people to participate, this is what we get. That is why other
committees are like that. I hope we do not continue this, because we
have not had this in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment that
this FAA reauthorization bill does not include language to protect the
operations and certification functions performed in our air traffic
control system. Recommitting this bill was absolutely necessary to fix
a fatally flawed conference report that risked the safety of the flying
public. Unfortunately, Republican conferees decided not to listen to
the will of Congress and excluded language that would protect our
Nation's air traffic control system from privatization.
There are two critical functions of the air traffic control system
that keep the system safe: certification and operations. Much of the
debate on this bill has centered on prohibiting privatization of the
operation functions performed by air traffic controllers and employees
of 69 VFR towers. Operation of the air traffic control system, however,
is only one part of the air traffic control system. In order for our
system to remain safe and efficient in this area where we still have a
great deal of fear, there must be language included in the bill to
protect the certification functions performed by FAA systems
specialists.
There are approximately 6,100 FAA systems specialists and technicians
who install, repair, maintain, and certify over 50,000 systems and
equipment that make up the air traffic control system. The
certification functions performed by the systems specialists are
critical to the safety and efficiency of the air traffic control system
and, therefore, must be protected from privatization.
Certification is the process that systems specialists and technicians
use to ensure that the systems used to separate and control aircraft
are working properly and interface correctly with the other 50,000
systems and equipment in the NAS, Only the U.S. government, through its
employees, is empowered to certify the air traffic control system. As a
result, only FAA personnel with sufficient knowledge of the entire NAS
may perform certification.
An example of the important functions that systems specialist perform
is the work they did for the Department of Defense after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. In the months after September 11th, the
DoD realized that they did not have radar capabilities to see or hear
air traffic activity within the U.S. borders. FAA systems specialists
worked with the DoD to provide additional radar surveillance as well as
data and voice communication capability to the military. What's really
remarkable about this is that the bulk of the work was completed in
only four months. The flexibility of the systems specialist workforce,
their extensive knowledge of how the entire air traffic control system
works as well as their ability to respond quickly to a problem would be
lost if the work is contracted out.
Safety should be the FAA's number one priority. The only way to
ensure that this happens is to enact legislation that protects the most
safety critical functions from privatization. This means that we must
protect all of the functions relating to the control and separation of
air traffic--functions performed by systems specialists and air traffic
controllers.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), one of the distinguished members
of our subcommittee.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and chairman of our
subcommittee for yielding me this time. I rise to pay tribute, first of
all, to our committee chairman and for his willingness to recommit this
bill and deal with the issue, part of which is being discussed today.
Secondly, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette)
for his willingness to support this bill and addressing the fact that
the committee, after the difficulties we had with the first report,
addressed the concerns that were expressed.
I want to now express my opinion for a second. I have heard far too
often statements made that directly or indirectly seemed to accuse
Members of this House of quibbling with the security of the American
flying, traveling public. I know that is not really intended, because
this bill and this conference report is all about the safety and
security of the American traveling public. I respect differences on the
tower issue. I respect that. But I know our President and I know no
member of our subcommittee and I know every Member of this House is
committed to seeing that air travel in this country is safe, which is
why the issues that are never talked about in this debate are so
important for me to bring out.
The fact that we have codified and put into statute with this law the
reimbursement to our airports and our airlines for the mandated
security that is the responsibility to be put in, to see to it that the
money is spent, the security is there. We no longer deal with
situations like last year where we have emergency supplementals with
billions of dollars and people arguing about who should have really
paid what. We have issued deadlines for installation of security, for
baggage inspection, for all the other things that we are doing. And now
through this bill, we are providing the mechanisms and ensuring the
framework in which that takes place.
So while I respect the differences that are debated and understand
the points on both sides with regard to the towers, you should not
throw the baby out with the bath water. This bill is about the safety
of the American people and the flying public. This bill is about
codifying that which since 9/11 we have grappled with regarding airport
security and the installation of additional security. This is about the
AIP. This is about the safety of the flying public. This is about an
industry that is essential to the economy of the United States of
America. I, like the gentleman from Ohio, will vote for this in its
final passage because it is about the safety and security of the
Americans and the Georgians that I represent flying safely in and out
of one of the largest airports in the world, Hartsfield International.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the
conference report on H.R. 2115, the FAA reauthorization bill. This
conference report is an affront to the proper legislative procedures of
this body and, worse yet, a threat to our Nation's stellar aviation
safety record.
As a member of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, I know firsthand that our committee developed strong,
bipartisan legislation that this House almost unanimously passed 418-8
last June. Yet today, we debate a controversial FAA reauthorization
conference report that has sparked heated opposition. Why? The answer
is simple. By bowing to industry pressure and Bush administration
demands and by shutting Democrats out of conference deliberations,
Republican leaders have crafted a report that compromises the safety
and security of the flying public. In fact, this conference report is
proof that the lessons of September 11 have been forgotten. Republican
leaders have forgotten that on September 11, air traffic controllers
safely landed 4,482 planes within 2 hours without one operation error.
[[Page H10184]]
This is a system to protect, not endanger. Yet this conference report
does just the opposite.
By allowing for further privatization of the air traffic control
system, which is really silent on it and the wording previously was
``prohibit,'' Republican leaders wish to put air safety in the hands of
the lowest bidder. That model did not work for airport security, and it
will not work for our air traffic control system. In writing this
conference report, Republican leaders have also forgotten the September
11 lesson that flight crews are a critical line of defense in aviation
security. This report drops a House-passed provision that would require
TSA to issue security and antiterrorism training guidelines for our
Nation's flight attendants. By making these guidelines optional, the
Congress is effectively rejecting calls by flight attendants for
greater security training to protect themselves, airline passengers,
and the American public.
I cannot in good conscience support this conference report. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just correct the record at this time. I have heard two Members
from the minority side cite that on September 11 that some 4 to 5,000
planes that were flying in the air were brought down safely by our air
traffic control system. That is correct. But, in fact, some 219 of
approximately 470 towers were contract towers, are contract towers,
private towers. This is the statement that was put out in a $7 million
NATCA, National Air Traffic Controllers, misinformation campaign. We
have a system now today, we had a system on September 11 with contract
towers and with fully staffed FAA towers.
So they question the safety and security. We advocate no change.
Nada. None. Zip. We have taken any mention of privatization out of
this. We are only instituting the status quo, the status quo that we
had on September 11.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to again fill out the record, if I may. It is not towers that bring
aircraft down. At altitude, at 29,000 feet, the en route center steps
aircraft down to 15,000 feet to a point where they are 40 miles out
from the airport, at which point the terminal radar control facility
takes over and brings aircraft to within 3 miles, at which point the
easy part is done by the controllers in the towers. That is the real
story. Let us not embellish this event of September 11.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this FAA
reauthorization bill. While I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
worked hard on this legislation, I rise in opposition to not what they
have done in their committee and in the light of day, but in opposition
to what the majority party of this Congress, both Houses, has done in
back rooms.
Mr. Speaker, as all of us who represent airports know, airport noise
is one of the biggest complaints we hear about. It is deafening. As the
Congressman for LaGuardia Airport, I represent the largest amount of
Americans who are acutely affected by airplane noise. The FAA through
the Airport Improvement Program helps to fund noise abatement programs
from schools and religious institutions to community centers to private
homes. It has let the local airport operating authority set the noise
level parameters for communities to qualify.
In section 189 of this bill, the former Senate majority leader
thought allowing local airport operating authorities to set their own
levels was not good enough. Section 189 says that only people who live
in the areas with higher than 65 decibels of aviation noise, the noise
of a power lawn mower, will receive funding for noise abatement
programs, leaving millions of people without the funding needed to
abate their homes.
This was all done without a single vote here on the floor of the
House or a single vote on the floor of the Senate. It was done in the,
quote-unquote, ``conference committee.'' This is a bad bill. That is
just one example. My colleagues have gone through the other issues.
This is a bad piece of legislation. This is not the way to make
sausage. It is not the way to make legislation, either. It should be
done in the light of day and should be done in the democratic way. We
should all have an opportunity to vote on these issues before it gets
to this point, which is not democratic; and it is not giving us an
opportunity to really have an effect on making this legislation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I appreciate the statement of the gentleman from New York. This
provision to which he refers is another example of egregious special
interest legislation that was advocated by one airline. It was done
without any consultation, without any discussion. It vitiates a signed
agreement between an airline in Minnesota and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission. It is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1815
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this conference
report on H.R. 2115, which will give the President the freedom to
privatize our air traffic controllers.
How does this make Americans safer? We must ask ourselves, how does
this make Americans safer? In a post-9/11 world, we must make safety a
priority. So I ask again, why are we doing this? Is it cheaper? The
answer is no. Privatizing increases our costs. Is this a good policy?
The answer is no. Privatizing has failed miserably in other countries.
Approximately 20,000 hard-working men and women of the FAA ensure the
safety of more than one million passengers each day, and we should
trust them to continue to do the job. This is why I say, nothing has
been broken, so why do we need to fix it?
The safety and security of the American people should not be the
responsibility of the low bidders. It is the core responsibility of our
American Government to make sure the safety is there. We must make sure
that democracy is there. We have not allowed democracy by allowing this
bill to come before us, and we should make sure that we vote no on
this.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and leader for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this bill. Many have spoken
against the provisions that privatize part of our Nation's air traffic
control system. Others have objected to the failure to direct the
certification and training of flight attendants. Others have condemned
the process that seems to have shut out Democrats, particularly our
leader, from participating in the drafting of this agreement. As much
as we respect the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), we know that
he could have added a great deal so we would not have had this
contentious argument.
I have one more reason to oppose it. In 1986, the Congress made an
agreement with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to cede
operational control and financing of our airports to our regional
authority. The Metropolitan Washington Region has maintained our part
of the bargain. This conference report breaks that agreement by adding
20 more flights and going beyond the 1,250 mile perimeter rule. That is
not right. It increases the safety concerns at National Airport.
For this and many other reasons, I oppose this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference agreement.
Many here have already spoken against provisions in this bill that
would allow privatilization of our nation's air traffic control system,
others have objected to this agreement's failure to direct the
certification and
[[Page H10185]]
training of flight attendants and still others have condemned a process
that has shut out Democrats from participating in the drafting of this
agreement.
Let me add one more reason to vote against this bill.
I object to this bill because it continues to intrude in the
operations of this region's local airports.
While I appreciate the good efforts of the chairman to restore
general aviation at National, to compensate businesses injured by the
current shutdown, and assist hometown carrier, U.S. Airways, operate
quieter, more efficient regional jets, I cannot support the heavy hand
of this Congress in violating two long-standing agreements and
mandating that National accommodate more flights and flights outside
the current perimeter rule restrictions.
The agreement before us today continues to violate a promise this
institution made to this region back in 1986.
In 1986, Senator Elizabeth Dole, President Reagan's Secretary of
Transportation, helped broker an agreement between the federal
government, the Congress, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of
Maryland, and the District of Columbia to cede control of National and
Dulles Airports to a regional authority that would have, in the words
of current law, ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion
in, operation and development of the airports.''
In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to
accept operational control of the airports and raise the money
necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports.
The Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland and the District
of Columbia have upheld their part of the bargain. Congress, however,
has not honored its part of the deal.
At least once every three years since this transfer took effect,
Congress has tried to intervene and micro manage the operations of the
two airports.
There may be a federal interest, and I recognize that both commercial
airports are still owned by the federal government, but should Congress
really be trying to determine what are clearly economic and business
decisions on what carriers fly where?
With the bill before us today, Congress is once again telling the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to waive its existing rules
and allow certain carriers more flights.
Mr. Speaker, these additional flights take us further down a
controversial road whose final destination will make few carriers happy
and cause real economic harm.
Three years ago, I spoke on the House floor opposing an FAA
authorization bill that added more flights at National.
At that time I warned that breaking the 1986 deal would bring us down
a dangerous path in which every FAA authorization bill would become a
vehicle for further tinkering and interference by Congress.
Obviously not enough Members were sufficiently satisfied with the
flights added in the last FAA reauthorization bill or we would not be
back here again today with more changes.
Who is happy with the proposed changes? Not U.S. Airways, Delta or
United, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority nor the
residents of this region.
In fact, there is no solution that will satisfy everyone.
But, continue down this path of forcing more flights and there will
be some real economic consequences that will ultimately undermine both
the quality and quantity of air service this region is fortunate to now
receive.
The point is being reached in which operational and safety
constraints imposed by the type of runway and the number of gates, not
slots, will limit the number of flights the airport is capable of
handling.
Once this threshold is crossed, both the quality and quantity of
flights will be compromised.
we risk:
(1) Losing direct air service to many smaller cities, those that can
least afford a disruption from an economic development standpoint,
(2) We risk a reduction in international air service that may result
in this region being bypassed in favor of other east coast airports
with better transcontinental connections. (Hundreds of millions of
dollars that have been invested to make Dulles an international gateway
will have been imprudently invested), and
(3) We risk more delays and congestion as operational limitations and
space cause delays throughout the system, something LaGuardia
encountered when its slot rule was repealed.
(4) And, adding one more slot, one more flight, is one more than
Washington area residents bargained for.
I know the support isn't there to rollback the 20 new slots, 8 inside
the perimeter and 12 outside, in this bill.
But why pile it on with an additional provision that gives Congress
yet another opportunity to tinker again with the operation of these two
airports?
Why create the added burden and economic uncertainty that this bill
invites by denying these two commercial airports the ability to receive
any new Airport Improvement Program grants or new Passenger Facility
Charges beginning in 2008?
Why single out and suspend federal assistance to just these two
airports?
I thought an understanding had been worked out when Delegate Norton
offered her amendment earlier this year on the House floor that this
obnoxious provision would be removed in conference.
Congress doesn't need this provision.
There is already sufficient oversight over the airports to ensure
that any federal interest is protected.
We've got the FAA reauthorization bill.
In addition, there's the authority's own board of directors that must
include 3 presidential appointments approved by the Senate.
In the past former Members of Congress have served on this board, and
the GAO has unique statutory authority to audit the activities and
transactions of the board.
Mr. Speaker, Congress, visitors to the nation's capital, businesses
and local residents have all benefited from the capital improvements
that have occurred at the airport since the regional authority took
over control.
Let's not place $100 of millions in future development at risk.
Let the two airports continue to be treated like all other commercial
airports for purposes of receiving improvement grants and new passenger
facility charges.
Reject this agreement.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, safety is not just one issue. Safety is a multiplicity
of overlying redundancies. Safety depends on the interaction of the
human and the technological.
What I object to in this proceeding is the lack of process, a lack of
opportunity for debate on the future of the air traffic control system.
Make no mistake about it, this debate is about the future of air
traffic control in America. This is about how our air traffic control
system will be managed in the future and by whom. It should be done in
the public interest, not in the private interest. All that stands
between the traveling public and a failure at seven miles in the air or
on the ground is our air traffic controller and the equipment he will
or she operates. We must keep it in the public sector.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I do sincerely believe that what is at stake here is the
future integrity of the air traffic control system in the United
States. There is none better in the world. I fear that in the future,
fragmentation of that system, taking major control towers and putting
them into the private for-profit sector, will bring pressures to bear
that will ultimately cause a catastrophe.
Look at Europe. Just last year, a midair collision. We have not had a
midair collision in a really long time in the United States of America.
This is not about making the system safer, it is not about making it
more efficient. The Europeans, the Canadians and others admit that our
traffic controllers are 75 percent more productive than their's. So it
is not about making it more productive. It is not about making it
safer.
The only reason that we are opening the door here, and we are
blasting the door open here by removing any restriction on
privatization, as was in the original bill, this White House has shown
it will fight to privatize. They have already threatened to veto the
bill unless we inserted the specificity of 71 towers. So they are
clearly going to go ahead with privatization.
Now, they are going to go ahead, not because they think it will be
safer, not because it will be more efficient. I do not even believe it
will be less expensive. The other failed air traffic privatizations
around the world have actually cost the taxpayers more, and they have
had to be bailed out in England and in Australia.
This is a ticking time bomb that I believe one day will kill
Americans, and I just cannot believe that we are going ahead in this
form without the proper consultation, without a conference, but
vitiating all the rules of the House, just so someone might be able to
make a little bit of money on something that is run so well by the
government today.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close
the debate on the conference report on H.R. 2115.
[[Page H10186]]
Mr. Speaker, indeed, this legislation is important to the success of
aviation in this country. This particular industry is one of the great
job creators, and no nation relies on safe and independent operation of
aircraft more than the United States.
I disagree on the point that has been raised here in closing. We do
not change in any way the current status of contract towers. We do not
mention privatization. We have taken out some 69 airports that were
identified in the previous conference report.
I believe that this bill strikes many carefully proposed compromises
that address the many needs of our aviation system while providing for
its future. I believe that this will also be a boon to many of our
communities, to restore jobs, to provide economic opportunity in an
industry that has been hard hit by the effects of September 11.
So we have an opportunity to help small communities. We have an
opportunity to continue a safe and cost-effective system.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members on the other side of the
aisle for their cooperation. I know that there is one issue in
particular that has brought us apart, but eventually it would lead to
this debate and to this day. I think this has been a healthy debate,
and I think that will be resolved by the vote that is to take place.
The U.S. aviation industry is the strongest in the world, and I am
committed to keeping it that way. H.R. 2115 and this conference report
provide stability and funding to ensure that our Nation will continue
to lead. I urge all Members to put aside partisan politics and to vote
to pass this conference report for H.R. 2115.
Again, I thank my colleagues and the staff for their fine work, and
especially the Members of the minority.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
conference report for H.R. 2115.
I am deeply disappointed that despite this Congress's actions to
recommit the bill to the conference committee, we are still dealing
with a flawed bill. Over three months ago, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee passed a good bill out of committee, a bill
that had my strong support.
Two times, this bill has come out of Conference Committee, and both
times the resulting product has been unacceptable. This bill contains
significant changes from the committee passed bill--changes that have
not previously been approved by the House or the Senate. I believe it
is telling that not a single Democrat in the House or the Senate signed
onto the conference report either time because of these egregious
changes.
The version of the bill that we are considering today removes the
language that would allow the FAA to contract out the operation of air
traffic control towers at 69 towers nationwide. However, this is not an
improvement over the previous version of the bill. Simply striking the
provision does nothing to ensure that our nation's air traffic control
system will not be contracted out to the lowest bidder. In fact, this
bill would make it easier to privatize the air traffic control system
by not prohibiting future privatization. We know that the
administration supports privatization, as demonstrated by their many
outsourcing initiatives and the reclassification of air traffic control
as a ``commercial activity.'' Every tower in this Nation is now at risk
for privatization.
In addition, this bill fails to address concerns that were in the
previous version of the bill, which include allowing China essentially
open access to our cargo markets, modifications to the Essential Air
Service program requiring small communities to pay a substantial sum
for their air service, and changes to the flight attendant training
programs that basically gut the requirements.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the rule
accompanying the Conference Report for the reauthorization of the
Federal Aviation Administration. I also oppose the Conference Report,
itself. The rule would allow the Republicans to get away with passing a
Conference Report without ever holding public meetings to work out an
acceptable compromise.
And, Mr. Speaker, passing the rule ultimately allows the Republicans
to get away with defying the will of the House. They excluded the
minority Party from the conference, and they wrote a brand new bill out
of thin air that contradicts the bills that passed out of both
chambers.
One example of this slight-of-hand relates to the Essential Air
Services program, which has ensured federal funding since airline
deregulation to ensure that rural communities can continue to be
included in the national aviation system. In the original House bill,
some Members wanted to impose a local match provision, which would have
required local communities to subsidize the federal government by
paying to qualify for air service. Others, like myself, pointed out
that doing this would kill air travel in small communities across more
than 35 states.
In my own district in West Virginia, this local match provision would
have applied to Bluefield Airport, serving the Bluefield and Princeton
areas. Thankfully, the House deleted the local match requirement on the
floor to guarantee that rural communities continue to be included in
the national aviation system.
Unfortunately, the Republicans on the Conference Committee, who
apparently don't care about maintaining a truly national air system,
decided to reinsert the local match provision in secret, and to subject
my rural West Virginia constituents to hardship.
They also inserted other provisions in the dark of night that are not
consistent with the House and Senate bills' provisions aimed at
ensuring safety. The Republicans secretly made it possible for the Bush
administration to privatize uniquely-skilled air traffic control jobs
at 69 airport across the country. It should also be noted that 11 of
the airports on the Republicans' hit list for possible privatization
are included among the 50 busiest towers in the country.
Although our highly-skilled air traffic controllers guided 5,000
planes to safety after one call from the Secretary of Transportation,
on September 11, 2001 while our Nation was under attack, the
Republicans think we should replace many of these skilled workers with
companies whose only bottom line is pure profit.
Then, because they knew the Conference Committee Democrats, like
myself for instance, would object to their brand new bill, they didn't
bother to properly hold meetings in accordance with the rules. Instead,
we had to find out through the media that they drafted a sham
Conference Report, which they all signed. As a result, this bill has
gone nowhere since July.
Now, amazingly, the Republicans come to the floor after this bill has
lingered for months, and they say that we exaggerate the impact of
their revisions. Then, they try to assure us that they have revised the
bill again to eliminate the objectionable provisions that they added.
And, they say we should just take their word for it and go ahead and
pass the bill today, even though we haven't had meetings to review this
bill that has supposedly been revised yet again without our
involvement.
This partisan hijacking of the bill to ruin rural air travel and
increase profits at the expense of safety is grotesque. Didn't we learn
anything at all about the importance of a reliable and safe national
air travel system from September 11?
The reauthorization of this bill offers us the opportunity to improve
upon our current system while addressing areas of need. We should go
back to work to accomplish that goal by finalizing a bipartisan bill
that reflects the shared interests of the House and the Senate, and the
American people. I urge Members to vote against the Rule. This bill
should be sent back to the Conference, and conference meetings to work
out a good bill should be held after all.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the FAA conference
agreement. While the conference report does remove the air traffic
control privatization language from the report, that action is
completely inadequate. Because the Administration has been so outspoken
about moving forward with its plans to privatize air traffic
controllers in airports across the country, there must be a clear
prohibition on any such privatization in this bill. One of the airports
targeted by the Administration is in my district, the Hayward Executive
Airport. I will not support a bill that fails to protect my community
from the threat of privatization.
Members of both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly to stop
the privatization of our nation's air control towers through directive
language. Both chambers also voted to require the Transportation
Security Administration to establish mandatory guidelines for
antiterrorism training for flight attendants. These and other important
issues were simply overturned by Republican Congressional leaders and
the White House--without even a perfunctory meeting of the FAA
Conference Committee which is supposed to be in charge of revising the
legislation.
The Federal Aviation Administration declared air traffic control
services a ``commercial activity'' presumably to avail air traffic
safety to private market interests. This is a completely misguided
approach to air traffic safety in light of the events of September 11.
Congress must do all it can to ensure that the safety of air traffic
remains in the skilled hands, and under the close scrutiny, of our
government. It is as much a public safety concern as are police or
firefighters and no one is advocating turning their jobs over to the
private sector.
[[Page H10187]]
The United States air traffic control system handles more than half
of the world's air traffic cargo, and it is the safest in the world.
The FAA air traffic controllers serve as the lynchpin of this system.
These dedicated federal employees ensure the safety of nearly one
million passengers every day. Their professionalism and skill was
tested under uncertain circumstances on September 11, 2001. FAA air
traffic controllers successfully landed 5,000 planes in two hours. They
accomplished a feat that no one ever thought possible, and a task that
no one wishes to repeat. The magnitude of that one accomplishment is
testament to a system that works beyond anyone's comprehension.
Our air traffic control system is the envy of the world. Other
nations that have privatized their air traffic control systems have
encountered unending difficulties and problems. Canada, Great Britain
and Australia have experienced questionable safety standards, increased
delays, financial bailouts from the government, and plummeting staff
morale.
Privatization of air traffic control is a big mistake and this
conference report does nothing to prevent the Bush Administration from
making the mistake anyway. We must learn from the lessons of other
nations, and give credit to a system that has performed above and
beyond expectations.
I urge my colleagues to reject privatization of our nation's air
traffic system and vote no on the FAA conference report.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the FAA Conference Report now under consideration.
This bill contains billions of dollars in vital funding for America's
airports and air traffic control system, which the Administration is
insisting on holding hostage to a seriously flawed plan to privatize
this nation's air traffic controllers.
Decisions made behind closed doors by a handful of conferees have
thwarted the will of both Houses of Congress and placed the flying
public in grave danger, by allowing for privatization of our air
traffic control system and eliminating requirements that flight
attendants receive vital anti-terrorism training.
As a representative from Long Island, New York, I have had the
opportunity to meet many of the controllers who live in my district and
who work at the nearby New York TRACON and New York Air Route Traffic
Control Center. These dedicated public servants monitor nearly 2
million flights each year, with only two concerns in mind: the safety
of passengers and the efficiency of air travel in the region.
We already know from the list of intended privatization sites
misleadingly pulled from this bill that the Administration hopes to
privatize one major airport on Long Island. We simply cannot begin down
a road that would put profit above safety and cost-cutting above hiring
the most qualified employees.
We also must not abandon flight attendants, many of whom lost their
lives on September 11, bravely fighting the terrorists who took over
their planes. We must do everything we can to act on the lessons
learned that terrible day, and provide all flight attendants with the
crucial training they need to deal with any future terrorist threats
aboard their planes. It defies logic that conferees stripped language
from this bill that would have prepared flight attendants to serve as a
line of defense in the event of a future attack.
Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate passed fair, bipartisan FAA
reauthorization bills by a combined vote of 512-8. I am deeply
disappointed that Majority party conferees took the unprecedented step
of ignoring the will of both chambers and all Democratic conferees.
I am left with no choice but to oppose this flawed bill, and I urge
my colleagues to do the same.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out against
this conference report for H.R. 2115, Flight 100--Century of Aviation-
FAA Reauthorization Act. This rule waives all points of order against
the conference report, including the rule that a conference must hold
at least one public meeting before filing its report.
Yesterday, the Republican Leadership after nearly 5-weeks of delay
finally brought the rule to recommit the seriously flawed conference
report on H.R. 2115. The House voted overwhelmingly to recommit the
conference report, by a vote of 407-0. The new conference did not hold
any public meeting and did not give Democratic Members of the
conference any opportunity for input or to offer any amendments to the
conference. In fact, Democratic Members of the conference were never
notified of any action by the Republican conferees until after the
conference was filed.
The new report was filed less than 24 hours after it was recommitted
to conference. Once again, the report was not signed by any Democratic
conferees in either the House or the Senate.
The new conference did not even address 3 of the 4 most controversial
issues contained in the first conference report. It made only one
change regarding the air traffic control matter. The only change to the
original conference was to strike out the section of the bill (section
230) that allowed for immediate privatization of 69 air traffic control
towers. The Republican and the Administration will claim that striking
out this section would simply reinstate current law and that it gives
air traffic controllers the same status they had under the Clinton
Administration. This is not the case.
Under the Clinton Administration, controllers were considered
``inherently governmental.'' In June of 2003, President Bush reversed
that standing in an Executive Order and air traffic control was
officially declared to be a ``commercial activity'' on February 6, 2003
by the Department of Transportation FAIR Act list. This means that
virtually any airport tower in the nation can be privatized by the FAA
without any Congressional action or approval. This is in spite of
language that was contained in both the House and Senate passed
versions of this bill which prohibited privatization of the air traffic
control system.
Furthermore, the new conference report makes no changes in the so
called ``cabatoge'' issue allowing foreign airlines to carry cargo
between cities in Alaska and other cities in the U.S., policies that
have been used both for national security and competition.
Additionally, the 2nd conference still makes the mandatory requirements
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that TSA issue security and anti-
terrorism training guidelines for flight attendants discretionary (the
mandatory language was in both the House and Senate bills). And the
conference report does not delete the requirement for certain
communities to pay a local share for essential air service. An
amendment to the conference report to fix all of these concerns was
offered in the Rules Committee last night but was defeated on a party
line vote.
I am also troubled that a provision I wrote in the House-passed bill
has been deleted from the Conference Report. Right now, American pilots
between the ages of 60 and 65 are forbidden to fly commercial
airliners. This is despite the fact that these pilots are forced to
pass physical and skills tests every six months. The reason for this is
that the FAA feels that these pilots pose a risk to the flying public.
However, foreign pilots from international airlines are allowed to fly
in U.S. airspace. If these pilots are unsafe, they should not be
flying. If they are safe, American pilots should be afforded the same
opportunities. All my provisions did was to require the FAA to do a
study on whether foreign pilots over the age of 60 are unsafe. This
would give Congress necessary clarification and a scientific basis for
this policy. The provision passed in the House Science Committee, but
was struck out in Conference. This does not make sense to me.
The aviation system in our country is far too critical to the safety
and security of our nation and its people to be manipulated by
irresponsible partisan politics. Members of the House and the Senate
voted overwhelmingly to stop the privatization of our the nation's air
control towers. Both Houses voted to require the TSA to establish
mandatory guidelines for antiterrorism training for flight attendants.
These and other important issues were simply overturned by the
Republican Leadership in the House and the Senate and by the White
House. Such actions are a dangerous precedent.
I will vote ``no'' for this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Oberstar
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. OBERSTAR. In its present form I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota moves to recommit the conference
report on the bill (H.R. 2115) to the committee of conference
with the following instructions to the managers on the part
of the House:
(1) Insist that a meeting of the conferees take place
pursuant to clause 12 of Rule XXII.
(2) Insist that section 624 (relating to transfer of
certain air traffic control functions prohibited) of the
Senate amendment to the bill be added at the end of subtitle
B of title II in the conference substitute recommended by the
committee of conference and be redesignated as section 230.
(3) Disagree to section 408 (relating to EAS local
participation program) of the conference substitute.
(4) Insist that in section 603 (relating to crew training)
of the conference substitute, in the matter proposed to be
inserted as section 44918(a)(4) of title 49, United States
[[Page H10188]]
Code, the phrase ``the Under Secretary may establish minimum
standards'' be changed to read ``the Under Secretary shall
establish minimum standards''.
(5) Disagree to section 808 (relating to United States
presence in global air cargo industry) of the conference
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit is nondebatable.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on the question of adoption of the conference report, if ordered,
and the motion to suspend the rules and agree to House Resolution 409
previously postponed.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 219, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 591]
YEAS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--219
Aderholt
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Akin
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Case
DeMint
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hunter
McCollum
McCotter
Miller (NC)
Pearce
Sanchez, Linda T.
Stupak
Waxman
Whitfield
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1847
Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut and Mr. LANGEVIN changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211,
noes 207, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 592]
AYES--211
Aderholt
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
[[Page H10189]]
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Akin
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Case
English
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gutierrez
McCollum
McCotter
Miller (NC)
Pearce
Sanchez, Linda T.
Stupak
Waxman
Whitfield
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1857
Mr. HOUGHTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________