[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2325-H2330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1586, TAX ON 
             BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1212 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1212

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from 
     certain TARP recipients, with the Senate amendments thereto, 
     and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
     point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 
     XXI, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or his designee that the 
     House concur in the Senate amendment to the title and that 
     the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendments and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of March 28, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.
       Sec. 3.  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 through the 
     legislative day of March 29, 2010.
       Sec. 4. (a) On any legislative day specified in subsection 
     (b), the Speaker may at any time declare the House adjourned.
       (b) When the House adjourns on a motion pursuant to this 
     subsection or a declaration pursuant to subsection (a) on the 
     legislative day of:
       (1) Thursday, March 25, 2010, it shall stand adjourned 
     until 10:30 a.m. on Monday, March 29, 2010.
       (2) Monday, March 29, 2010, it shall stand adjourned until 
     10 a.m. on Thursday, April 1, 2010.
       (3) Thursday, April 1, 2010, it shall stand adjourned until 
     4 p.m. on Monday, April 5, 2010.
       (4) Monday, April 5, 2010, it shall stand adjourned until 9 
     a.m. on Thursday, April 8, 2010.
       (5) Thursday, April 8, 2010, it shall stand adjourned until 
     noon on Monday, April 12, 2010.
       (c) If, during any adjournment addressed by subsection (b), 
     the House has received a message from the Senate transmitting 
     its concurrence in an applicable concurrent resolution of 
     adjournment, the House shall stand adjourned (as though by 
     motion) pursuant to such concurrent resolution.
       (d) The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties 
     of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by this 
     section as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 
30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 1586, the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 
2010. The rule makes in order a single motion offered by the chair of 
the Transportation Committee that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment to the title and concur in the Senate amendment to the text 
with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. It provides 
for 1 hour of debate on the motion.
  The rule provides the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the 
rules; and waives requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the 
same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This requirement is 
waived through Monday, March 29.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here just a day after having been reminded yet 
again of the pain of many of my friends and constituents of the tragic 
February 12, 2009 crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 and the grief caused 
to the people of our area.
  Yesterday morning, right here in the Capitol, I was privileged to 
meet with some of the victims' families. It is always a sobering 
experience to sit down with those brave souls and their efforts to 
fight for safer travel for the rest of us. Their great fight is a 
testament to their commitment and passion.
  In fact, it is my sincere hope and prayer that once we finish this 
effort and make changes to the laws governing pilot safety that we can 
find a way to name it to honor the lost lives of this crash. I suggest 
calling this legislation the ``Buffalo Safety Act.'' I can think of no 
better way to mark the lessons we have learned as a Nation about

[[Page H2326]]

flight safety than honoring the people who died on that icy, snowy 
night.
  The meeting I had yesterday morning centered on safety proposals and 
a discussion of how this legislation will eventually be implemented. We 
also talked with the Federal Aviation Administration about why it has 
to take so long before simple, commonsense changes can be made to the 
laws that govern how many hours a pilot flies, how they are trained and 
who is responsible for ensuring their flight records are not locked 
away in some box where nobody can assess their skills.
  After last year's crash, I could hardly believe it when we learned 
that the pilot of Flight 3407 had failed five different tests, yet his 
employer only knew about two of those failures. Shouldn't a pilot's 
entire flying record be available to their employer? I think so. I know 
it would make me feel better about getting on a plane.
  As you know, I have been fighting for a handful of specific and 
simple changes to current law. I believe that the regional pilots have 
to be paid better. Better compensation will help to make sure we get 
the best people in the cockpit. I was stunned to learn that the first 
officer of Flight 3407 was paid $16,000 a year. That is less than you 
would earn at a convenience store. Is that what we should pay people 
who we trust with our lives?
  I am also worried about fatigue. A tired pilot is not at his or her 
best, and that is not acceptable. My proposal would call for a study by 
the National Academy of Science on this topic but would go further by 
tasking the FAA to rewrite many of the standards for pilots.
  I would like to see pilots' flight records available so that 
everybody knows about the problems in their past flying experiences. 
Again, my plan would mandate that the General Accounting Office review 
this with an eye toward greater transparency.
  I would like to see carrier maintenance of their aircraft, changes 
made to the cozy relationship that the FAA has with airlines, and some 
way to put real teeth into the recommendations that grew out of the 
horrific hearings last spring by the National Transportation Safety 
Board.
  It has been 21 years, Mr. Speaker, since we have revised some of the 
standards for aircraft rescue and firefighting standards. We are well 
overdue to update our expectations for all pilots, who, for the most 
part, are well-qualified, dedicated, and well-trained professionals.
  Of course, the legislation that we are debating today is about much 
more. With this bill, we have essentially combined our pilot safety 
bill and the FAA authorization in one package.

                              {time}  1045

  It is my hope the Senate will do the right thing and allow us to go 
to conference where we can quickly and appropriately settle upon a 
compromise that allows us to turn this conversation into tangible 
improvements.
  Besides the safety programs, this bill provides essential increases 
in aviation funding and safety improvements and invests in the Airport 
Improvement Program to help overcome congestion and delays.
  The amendment we are considering today consists of the text of two 
bills that already have passed the House, H.R. 915, the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2009, and H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and 
Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009.
  I urge my colleagues to come together with me to approve this rule. 
Let us move quickly to pass this amendment and send it to the Senate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, the chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee, for extending me time on this FAA Reauthorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this may not come as a surprise to you or Members of 
this body, but once again we are here to discuss a bill on the floor 
that has come to the floor under a closed rule. We continue this 
process in this House of Representatives despite the promise from the 
majority that they would lead this floor with open and honest and 
ethical debate and, once again, this is neither open, and I do not 
believe it's an honest process if Members of this body are shut out day 
after day after day after day after day in the Rules Committee, 
Republicans and Democrats, who cannot come to this floor as a result of 
the Rules Committee action that we took yesterday. They are not even 
opening this process up to the Members. I think it's bad for this body, 
I think it's terrible for the Rules Committee and, even worse, I think, 
to extend the expectation that we would be open on this floor is a 
misnomer, and it has been for almost 4 years now.
  This Democrat majority has not allowed for one open amendment process 
this entire legislative session, not one, not one, Mr. Speaker, and 
that's unprecedented. Last week, as we were up over the weekend 
Saturday in the Rules Committee for the important health care debate, 
Members came to the Rules Committee the entire day with over 80 
Republicans amendments, presenting ideas, ideas that they had, some 
which were outstanding bills and some which were small and minor fixes.
  Yet at the end of the day, before we voted on Sunday, gleefully the 
Rules Committee majority, including our chairwoman, gleefully announced 
all 80 Republican ideas were defeated, all 80 Republican ideas were 
slam dunk in the Rules Committee. All 80 Republican ideas that Members 
came to express themselves up on the floor, slam dunk, and gleefully 
the bill was held as is, no additional outside comment necessary, 
Democrats have it down. This has happened day after day, bill after 
bill.
  We are here, Republicans on the floor of the House of Representatives 
today, saying, again, that's not right. That's not the way to run this 
ship, this is not open, and this is not the process that should be 
followed.
  So I guess that when the Speaker promised we are going to be the most 
open, the most honest, the most ethical Congress, I don't think she was 
referencing how she and our chairwoman would be running the Rules 
Committee or the legislation on this floor. Not only is this rule 
closed, but it allows for martial law authority, meaning that whatever 
the majority wants to do, they can do on this floor, all the way 
throughout the weekend, all the way into Monday.
  The Rules Committee continues to shut out Republicans, our ideas, and 
to circumvent the rules that this committee has traditionally had 
simply to pursue an agenda. I believe last weekend, as thousands of 
people were outside trying to have their voices be heard, once again, 
this body did not listen to them and rejected their pleas, which really 
begs the question, I think, would the majority each time a bill comes 
up for consideration eliminate the amendment process from the debate?
  Is that what they are afraid of? Are they afraid to debate these? Are 
they afraid to have Members like the gentleman, Mr. Mica, come and 
present his ideas, ranking member of the committee, a gentleman who has 
spent lots of time working with people to make this bill better?
  What are they afraid of? Are they trying to protect their Members 
from tough votes? Are they afraid of the process? What is it that 
continues this process with not one open rule this legislative session? 
Oh, by the way, we are in the second session right now, this is the 
second year.
  Today's closed rule is all about the Federal Aviation Administration, 
known as the FAA, and this is their reauthorization act. This bill 
would reauthorize the FAA for 3 more years. While U.S. air travel plays 
a fundamental role in our economy, and making safe provisions, a 
cornerstone of this legislation, is important, yet there are 
controversial provisions, including cost increases for passengers, 
excessive spending and labor negotiations, and job losses. Today I 
would like to talk about those parts of this bill that were not 
amended, do not allow for Member contest, for amendments.
  Keeping up the tradition of Democratic Party spending, this bill 
authorizes $70 billion over 4 years. This is a historic level of 
funding for the FAA, which should come as no surprise from this 
Democrat-controlled Congress that has already set record levels of 
deficit and spending over the past 4 years and, once again, aiming for 
a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, $200 billion worth of deficit last 
month alone.

[[Page H2327]]

  This legislation reiterates the 1998 labor agreement between the 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association and the FAA. This is a 
terrible precedent to have Congress interject itself in a current labor 
dispute, especially when it is on the back of the American taxpayer. 
According to CBO, this agreement is going to cost taxpayers $83 million 
this year and over $1 billion throughout the 4-year reauthorization. 
This bill puts funding for other important safety and air traffic 
control modernization programs at risk. Forget the negotiation--we will 
just take care of that here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Additionally, this legislation directs the FAA to conduct biannual 
inspections on all foreign repair stations. This completely disregards 
the bilateral safety agreements and invites foreign retaliation that 
threaten 130,000 American jobs at service stations. Mr. Speaker, why 
does this Democrat leadership continue to bring bills to the floor of 
the House of Representatives that threaten American jobs?
  We should be all about ensuring that American jobs are taken care of, 
not putting them at risk. We have seen record unemployment over the 
last year. As a matter of fact, in the last year since President Obama 
has become our President, here in several months, we have doubled the 
amount of people who are unemployed in this country. More and more 
people are out of work every day directly because of the political 
agenda and will of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi on this floor of the 
House of Representatives with votes of Democratic Members.

  Americans want jobs. We want a pro-growth strategy. We want to make 
sure and should be on this floor talking about being competitive with 
the world, not here trying to satisfy union concerns and raise taxes 
and diminishing more jobs and putting them at risk.
  Despite the record unemployment and the 130,000 jobs this bill 
currently threatens, it goes one step further by invalidating all 
antitrust immunity grants to airline allowances 3 years after enacting 
their contracts. This will hurt U.S. carriers' competitiveness and 
threaten another 15,000 jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, why would we want to become less competitive with other 
foreign nations? Why would this Congress want to place America in a 
defensive position against the things which have strengthened 
Americans' relationship with other countries and ensured, not just that 
we would get along, but American jobs in the process.
  This legislation also increases the Passenger Facility Charge, known 
as the PFC for those of us who are regular travelers, up to $7 per 
flight. That is a 56 percent increase from the current allowable $4.50 
per flight charge.
  At a time when our airlines, not unlike all other areas of this 
economy, are struggling, we are now going to stick it to those who are 
flying to pay for these boondoggle expenses that I believe this 
Congress is creating. While the FAA says the fees are important to fund 
FAA-approved projects to enhance safety and security, what it's really 
all about is being able to pay for this union contract.
  You know, these projects also include things like bike storage for 
passengers that are laid out in the bill, bike storage for passengers 
on airlines. I don't know about you, but I don't know how many 
passengers who bike to the airports with their luggage, but that's what 
we are going to do. We are going to go and make bicycle areas available 
at airports. That's just a lot of money, and it's a lot of wasted money 
that does not make sense at a time when we should be making tough 
decisions, not adding to the expense that is required at every airport 
in this country.
  This reauthorization does very little to improve our Nation's air 
traffic control modernization program, known as NextGen. Despite 
concerns and growing congestion in our Nation's airspace, the bill does 
not provide a dedicated funding source, does not establish an air 
traffic control modernization board, and does not provide NextGen with 
needed borrowing authority, authority to be prepared for our future. 
Without proper funding and oversight, NextGen will fail to properly 
deploy the congestion in U.S. airspace, which is reaching critical 
levels, to ensure the safety areas are fully adopted to.
  This legislation does include the bipartisan bill H.R. 3371, the 
Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act, that passed the 
House of Representatives last year. This is a step in the right 
direction for the future safety of airline travel, ensuring our pilots 
have the appropriate screening and training that is necessary.
  Over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, the President promised that 
unemployment would not reach 8 percent. Over 3 million Americans since 
then have lost their jobs. That was a promise. We have now reached a 
10.2 percent record unemployment rate and continue to hover well above 
the 8 percent that we were told would be the margin. Congress needs to 
stop the record spending, needs to focus on creating jobs, not 
diminishing them, as this bill threatens 130,000 jobs today.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we have the ability to make progress in 
Congress, create jobs, and grow the economy. America should be called 
the ``Employer Nation,'' and, instead, this Congress fails to 
understand how jobs are formed through investment and reinvesting 
within businesses in this country.
  We should work with the investor and the free enterprise system to 
become the global leader. We should not rely on governments to pull us 
out of this economic stumble that we are in.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 8 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida, who is the ranking member of the Aviation 
Subcommittee, Mr. Mica.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House, I rise in strong opposition 
to this closed rule to consider FAA reauthorization legislation. Quite 
frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted with this whole process at a time 
when millions of Americans are without employment, people are having 
their homes foreclosed, people seeking jobs for more than a year now 
finding no opportunities, people cutting back across the land in tough 
economic times.

                              {time}  1100

  I am really saddened that we continue to play games with one of our 
most important responsibilities, and that is providing Federal 
authorization for all of our aviation programs.
  The FAA bill sets the blueprint for our policy, Federal policy, for 
projects, for funding, for every activity dealing with aviation in this 
Nation. I am actually sickened by the games that have been played with 
this.
  As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, in May of 2003--now listen 
to this--in 2003, I introduced the current and longstanding last 
Federal Aviation Authorization bill. Now, I didn't get it done 
immediately; but by December, in 6 months I had that on the President's 
desk, and in December of 2007 the President signed that.
  Now, the other side of the aisle has had complete control of the 
Congress, 258 votes in the House of Representatives, 60, until just 
about a month ago, to do anything they wanted to do to move this 
country forward, to move our policy forward as far as transportation, 
infrastructure, job creation, investment in this country, and we are 
here on the eve of an Easter recess playing games with a major piece of 
infrastructure legislation. This is sickening.
  Yesterday, we passed the 13th extension. The bill expired in 2007. 
The 13th extension. And, again, the other body had 60 votes to do 
anything they wanted to. They could have put any terms in there. So we 
finally get a bill from them, and they play games with that bill and 
send it over to us, not to consider our legislation, but putting it on 
a Ways and Means bill.
  Now, I went before the Rules Committee yesterday, and I again 
emphasized the importance of passing this legislation.
  I just came from a meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers 
who talked about a $2.2 trillion deficit in infrastructure in this 
country, and one of the major glaring areas that we haven't paid 
attention to is aviation. Aviation is the pathway, the very means, of 
conducting business in this country. Whether it's for passengers, who 
fly two-thirds of all the flights on the planet in this country, it is 
our doorway to success in economic activity; and still this bill 
languishes. This is obscene.
  We had the opportunity yesterday, if they would have provided an open 
rule,

[[Page H2328]]

to send over to the Senate, the other body, a measure that would have 
moved this forward and we could have a bill on its way to the President 
of the United States and moved the policy and the projects and the jobs 
forward.
  Instead, what they are doing--and listen to what they are doing--they 
are adding on a House bill that we passed last May with job-
threatening, job-killing provisions.
  What is wrong with this place?
  This is serious. People in this country are crying out for economic 
opportunities, for jobs, for the dreams of Americans. Instead, what are 
we doing? We are playing games. Now we are sending it back.
  If they would have provided us with an open rule--the Senate bill 
wasn't that bad; the other body's bill wasn't that bad--we could have 
amended it today and got on with the business of this country, got on 
with advancing aviation. So, instead, we are going to put provisions in 
here.
  The first provision we put in there is absolutely ridiculous, that 
is, to get NATCA, the air traffic controllers, to do away with their 
contracts. Well, folks, they have already done away with the contract. 
Of course, nobody knows it; but they have already done away with the 
contract. The air traffic controllers, who now get $166,000 on average, 
that is their average pay, behind closed doors they cut a deal to give 
everyone a $9,000 pay increase. Well, you know, you win the election, 
you pay off your friends. They helped them win the election, so they 
get a $9,000 pay increase; 15,000 of them, they give a $30,000 pay 
increase, $45,000 on average, to new hires in air traffic control.
  Now, air traffic controllers do a good job. Do they deserve $166,000 
on average? I don't think so. They are well compensated. That is 15,500 
employees.
  Well, I have 22,000 employees that we left behind in FAA in that 
sweetheart deal, engineers, people with Ph.D.s, people who have 
technical expertise in safety that I need in that agency. We left them 
behind so we could play political games. And they put the provision in 
here that is almost an insult, because they already cut that deal. They 
have got a provision in here on repair stations. It threatens to kill 
130,000 jobs in this legislation--130,000 jobs. They invalidate an 
antitrust provision. This is what we are tacking on to the Senate bill 
that came over here, 15,000 jobs.
  When we debated the bill on the floor, I stood up, and almost every 
speaker who spoke I cited how many jobs would be lost in their district 
or their State or threatened to be lost because of the provisions. Now 
we are tacking those job-killing provisions back on this bill and 
sending it to the other body.
  It gets worse. You heard some of the things that are in here that do 
not belong in here that will harm aviation, that will set us behind, 
that will kill additional jobs; and yet we are playing that game.
  So it's a lot of fun, folks, to be here when people are hurting, when 
people are looking to us for leadership. And what do we provide them? A 
little Ping-Pong game: Here comes the bill again. There goes the bill 
again.
  Well, I am going to vote ``no'' on this rule. I am going to vote 
``no'' on the legislation that follows. Not because I don't want to 
proceed; I want to proceed. But we need to do it in a responsible 
fashion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire how much time remains, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady from New York has 24\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I once again would like to thank the gentlewoman for 
the time she has extended to us. And I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. 
Mica, for being here today on the floor.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the House is 
operating an unprecedented restrictive rules process, once again, 
continuing the 4 years, into our fourth year of this very interesting 
process to deny Members the opportunity to come and to place their 
ideas on this floor, to debate their ideas, and a chance to vote on 
them. I think it is a bad way to run the House.
  Every time a rule is up, we get to say, Well, brand-new record. 
Brand-new record here for the House of Representatives.
  I think you heard the frustration that came from a gentleman who has 
devoted his life, not only his career, to the transportation 
infrastructure areas of this country, but also the FAA and a lot of 
initiatives and ideas that he wishes he could have been a part of to 
make this better. But, once again, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle refuse to work with the Republicans. They refuse to allow 
amendments or even a motion to recommit, and then given themselves 
martial law, same-day suspension authority, and other circumventing 
activities just to get their job-killing agendas through this House of 
Representatives.
  If it weren't just job killing, it would be simple for the American 
people to understand, but it is also record taxing and spending. Big 
Government. Big Government, empowering government-types of rules and 
bills on this floor. And we oppose that.
  If we continue to borrow, tax, and spend down this pathway that the 
Democrat majority has that we have been pursuing since 2007, we are 
going to keep finding that not only do we keep losing jobs, but our 
country functionally will be broke. Not just broken, but bankrupt-type 
broke. We are noncompetitive, and we are doing nothing to create 
competitiveness around this world. As a matter of fact, we are trying 
to play hardball with other countries.
  No wonder this President is seen, and America is seen, in the world's 
eyes the way that we are. We are told that others diminished America's 
reputation, but what we are doing here today is just another 
opportunity to go stick our finger in the eye of our friends around the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. We heard the gentleman from Florida 
say he is outraged. All we can do is that which is given to us. We will 
vote ``no.'' We will vote ``no'' on this rule. We will vote to try and 
gain some opportunity to where we can have balance back on this floor, 
and we will continue to stand up and talk about how we would like for 
this country to be an employer Nation.
  We would like to have this Congress aim at its business and what it 
does, instead of part-time or summer jobs; full-time jobs, employment, 
and opportunity for the American people. We would like to see this 
Congress take on the opportunities to say that we recognize that the 
way we will have jobs is by lowering taxes and giving investors an 
opportunity, a chance to place their hard-earned money into the free 
enterprise system where jobs can be built and grown, an opportunity not 
to have the three largest political agenda items that this Democratic 
Party, this President Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi stand for, three 
major political items that would net lose this country 10 million jobs.
  This last weekend as we were up in the Rules Committee, we were 
talking about the diminishment of jobs or the guess of diminishment 
jobs in this health care bill, and I stated what I believe was 
factually correct: around 4\1/2\ million jobs would be lost. And one of 
my Democratic colleagues yelled back, It's only 3 million jobs--only 3 
million jobs are expected to be lost by this health care bill.
  That is 3 million American jobs today that we are knowingly, 
willingly, voting to say, That's okay. We don't care about those jobs, 
because what we want to do is to take care of some 25 million people 
who do not have insurance coverage and are underinsured on health care 
today, and yet remaining another 25 million that are out there.
  The cost-benefit ratios are staggering from this Democrat majority. 
It is staggering what we are doing to the free enterprise system, to 
families, to jobs, to people who want to have an opportunity to have a 
job, the dignity to take care of themselves. It's staggering to me the 
amount of debt, the amount of spending that takes place from this 
Democratic House of Representatives. It's staggering to me to see that 
this leadership and the votes that are made on this floor of the House 
of Representatives day after day are from our past and perhaps our 
future.
  We don't even care if we read the bill. We don't care about the 
process. We care more about our political agenda, a political agenda 
about making government bigger, about bankrupting this

[[Page H2329]]

country, about taking jobs from American people, about the cavalier 
nature in which this is done.
  And then we look at the opportunity as we go through the bill to see 
that this health care bill, and other bills like we are having here 
today, simply empower other people, bigger government: 16,000 new IRS 
agents will be hired simply to make sure that this health care bill is 
enforced.
  It's these kinds of questions, Mr. Speaker, which Republicans and I 
believe others are raising about the leadership of Barack Obama and the 
leadership of Nancy Pelosi; and yet we look up and see day after day 
the votes that are on the floor.
  Don't even worry about reading the bill. Let's just get this done: 
this is why we are having problems in this country. We should open up 
the process.

                              {time}  1115

  We should have open, honest, ethical debates. We should be willing to 
accept Republican ideas. We should not be gleeful when, Well, we reject 
it. Eighty Republican ideas. Job well done, Democratic team. Let's 
slam-dunk those Republicans. Let's not allow their ideas.
  Mr. Speaker, for this country to work, and to work properly, it's 
going to take all of us working together, not just the Democrat 
majority because they have the votes to slam-dunk Republicans. We 
believe process is important. We believe ideas are important. We 
believe that the Republican Party has lots of ideas that we will 
continue to stand up for. We are an alternative party and we will 
continue to show up every day faithfully for the American people; 
faithfully to say that we believe in not only freedom and opportunity, 
but we believe in the free enterprise system and people to have the 
dignity of jobs.
  And we are going to fight these job-killing Democrat ideas. We're 
going to fight these taxes and the spending that takes place, and we 
will make sure that the American people understand this is just another 
chance today to put America further and deeper into debt. It makes us 
sick to our stomach when we have to have Members who come and say, I 
was shut out of this process. No wonder I'm going to vote against this 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, Mr. Speaker, in response to Mr. Sessions' 
comments on jobs, I would like to quote from this morning's Dallas 
Morning News and then submit the article for the Record. ``Jobs 
picture.'' I believe this is the gentleman's district. ``Moody's is 
forecasting that most Texas markets--including the Dallas-Forth Worth 
area--will have made up for employment lost during the recession and be 
adding jobs by late next year.''
  ``The central part of the country and all of Texas will be among the 
first to reclaim all of its lost jobs.''
  The just-passed Federal health care legislation could add 
significantly to the employment base, since Texas is one of the States 
with the highest percentage of consumers who have no health care 
insurance.

             [From the Dallas Morning News, Mar. 24, 2010]

      Moody's Experts Predict Texas Cities Will Lead the Recovery

                            (By Steve Brown)

       Texas cities will outpace the rest of the country coming 
     out of the recession.
       But that doesn't mean there won't be bumps in the road to 
     recovery, the folks at Moody's Analytics said Tuesday at 
     their annual Dallas economic confab.
       There's still some bad news--more woes in store for the 
     battered real estate sector. But Moody's predicts that Texas 
     will find new jobs in health care, high tech and energy.
       ``This region really does lead the nation in terms of 
     recovery and will be one of the first regions to achieve a 
     new employment peak,'' Steven Cochrane, Moody's Analytics' 
     managing director, told more than 100 local businesspeople at 
     the session. ``The recession was just so shallow here because 
     the housing cycle was shallow.
       ``Income growth was more stable, and state fiscal 
     conditions are better,'' he said. ``There is a smaller hole 
     to dig out of.''


                              Jobs picture

       Moody's is forecasting that most Texas markets--including 
     the Dallas-Fort Worth area--will have made up for employment 
     lost during the recession and be adding jobs by late next 
     year or early 2012.
       ``The central part of the country and all of Texas will be 
     among the first to reclaim all of its lost jobs,'' Cochrane 
     said.
       The Dallas area is expected to increase employment by about 
     1.5 percent in 2010 and 3 percent in 2011.
       Oil and gas and high tech will be among the sectors that 
     drive job creation in Texas during the next few years, 
     Moody's predicts.
       The just-passed federal health care legislation could also 
     add significantly to the employment base, since Texas is one 
     of the states with the highest percentage of consumers who 
     lack medical insurance.


                           Big growth driver

       ``We will probably see this as a big growth driver in all 
     of the South long term,'' Cochrane said.
       Moody's analysts aren't bullish about the country's housing 
     market. They expect further weakness this year and a slow 
     turnaround when it comes.
       ``Foreclosures are at best peaking now,'' Moody's Analytics 
     director Edward Friedman said. ``Maybe it will be another 
     three or for months before they finally peak completely, and 
     we see the true turnabout we need to believe the housing 
     market is headed on the right track.''
       That's why Moody's is forecasting further declines in 
     nationwide home prices during the next six months. ``We think 
     another 5 or 10 percent,'' Friedman said.


                          The drag of housing

       Unlike in most economic rebounds, the housing market will 
     continue to drag, he said.
       ``The housing sector--isn't that the sector that leads the 
     recovery?'' Friedman said. ``Not this time.''
       Moody's estimates that U.S. households have lost almost $6 
     trillion in housing values during the recession.
       ``The rebound so far has only been in the stock market,'' 
     Friedman said. ``You are not getting your housing 
     construction rebound.''
       Texas home prices aren't likely to see much of a bounce 
     during the next couple of years, the analysts predict.
       ``Housing isn't a significant driver in the Texas economy 
     right now,'' Cochrane said.
       Moody's also has red flags flying over the U.S. commercial 
     real estate market but doesn't think commercial price 
     adjustments will hurt the economy as badly as the housing 
     sector shakeout has.
       ``Nonresidential construction is pretty far down,'' 
     Friedman said.
       ``How much further down could it go?''

  I would also like to quote from an AP article this morning and then 
submit the article for the Record.
  ``The Labor Department said Thursday''--that's today--``that first-
time claims for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally 
adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of 450,000, 
according to Thomson Reuters.''
  As you recall, as I do, Mr. Speaker, that at the beginning of this 
session we inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, 
and we have moved steady, month by month, putting people back to work.
  The next thing I'd like to report, ``Analysts forecast the Nation 
will gain more than 150,000 jobs in March,'' and, ``We believe that the 
trend in initial claims is signaling that . . . job creation is 
imminent,'' say the economists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who 
wrote that before the Labor Department's report.

    Unemployment Claims Drop by 14,000--Most of the Drop Pegged to 
         Adjustments in How Labor Department Calculates Claims

       Washington, Mar. 25, 2010.--(AP) New claims for 
     unemployment benefits fell more than expected in the U.S. 
     last week as layoffs ease and hiring slowly recovers.
       The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims 
     for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally 
     adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of 
     450,000, according to Thomson Reuters.
       But most of the drop resulted from a change in the 
     calculations the department makes to seasonally adjust the 
     data, a Labor Department analyst said. Excluding the effect 
     of those adjustments, claims would have fallen by only 4,000.
       The department updates its seasonal adjustment methods 
     every year, and revises its data for the previous five years. 
     Seasonal adjustment attempts to filter out expected changes 
     in employment such as the layoff of temporary retail 
     employees after the winter holidays. The goal of seasonally 
     adjusted figures is to provide a more accurate picture of 
     underlying economic trends.
       Excluding seasonal adjustment, initial claims fell by more 
     than 30,000 last week to 405,557.
       The four-week average of claims, which smooths volatility, 
     dropped by 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 453,750, the 
     department said, the lowest since September 2008, when the 
     financial crisis intensified.
       Initial claims have fallen in three of the past four weeks, 
     wiping out most of the increase that took place in the first 
     two months of this year. That increase early in the year 
     stoked worries among economists that improvement in the job 
     market was stalling.
       First-time claims were elevated last month by severe 
     snowstorms on the East Coast, which caused backlogs in many 
     state offices that fell behind in processing claims.
       Many economists say claims need to fall below roughly 
     425,000 to signal that the economy will consistently create 
     jobs, though

[[Page H2330]]

     some say it could happen with claims at higher levels. 
     Analysts forecast the nation will gain more than 150,000 jobs 
     in March, partly due to temporary hiring for the Census. The 
     March figures will be reported April 2.
       ``We believe that the trend in initial claims is signaling 
     that . . . job creation is imminent,'' economists at Bank of 
     America Merrill Lynch wrote before the Labor Department's 
     report.
       Initial claims are considered a gauge of the pace of 
     layoffs and an indication of companies' willingness to hire 
     new workers.
       The number of Americans continuing to claim unemployment 
     benefits, meanwhile, fell to 4.6 million.
       But that doesn't include millions of people who are 
     receiving extended benefits for up to 73 extra weeks, paid 
     for by the federal government, on top of the 26 customarily 
     provided by the states. Nearly 5.7 million people were on the 
     extended benefit rolls for the week ended March 6, the latest 
     data available. That is about 300,000 lower than the previous 
     week. The extended benefit figures aren't seasonally adjusted 
     and are volatile from week to week.
       All told, more than 11.1 million people are claiming 
     unemployment benefits, the department said.

  I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous 
question and the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question.
  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________