[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.
____________________