[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 45 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2122-H2129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1320
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 658, FAA REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM 
                              ACT OF 2011

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 189

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 658) to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to 
     streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and 
     improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable 
     funding for the national aviation system, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed 
     one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, 10 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of the Rules Committee Print dated March 22, 2011. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my good 
friend, Mr. McGovern, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  House Resolution 189 provides for a structured rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 
2011. The rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for Members 
of the minority and majority to participate in the debate.
  This structured rule has made in order dozens of amendments on a wide 
range of provisions in this bill, but also in transportation policy in 
general.
  In addition to the 1 hour of equally divided general debate on the 
bill, the rule has made 33 amendments in order, including 18 amendments 
from the minority, 12 from the majority, and three bipartisan 
amendments. Of the 24 amendments offered by the minority, 21 were made 
in order by this rule.
  I point out the number of amendments made in order by this rule by 
specificity because it is so unusual. The last long-term FAA 
reauthorization passed Congress in 2007, and the rule for that bill 
allowed for only five amendments to be debated on the floor.

[[Page H2123]]

  Since the last long-term FAA reauthorization expired, Congress has 
passed 18 short-term extensions, and never once has any of the rules 
allowed for any amendment of any kind to be debatable on this floor.
  While many at home may assume that when the House debates something 
as important as the aviation system, their Member of Congress is given 
the opportunity to offer and submit ideas and debate those ideas on 
this floor, it has not been the case in recent years.
  Today, we will likely hear from Members of the minority insisting 
that the underlying bill contains inadequate funding, despite the fact 
that our Nation is facing a $1.6 trillion deficit and we should be 
tightening our belts just like families across America are doing.
  We may hear Members from the other side of the aisle complaining that 
the legislation eliminates government subsidized ``essential'' air 
services to rural areas of America, despite skyrocketing costs to 
taxpayers during an already stressful economic time.
  And we may also hear from colleagues that suggest that the 
legislation contains a poison pill provision on rewriting union 
election rules, despite those rules being in place and overwhelmingly 
effective for the last 70 years.
  To those complaints, I would specifically and simply ask and suggest: 
Vote for the rule. The rule allows for amendments to debate 
alternatives of all kinds to the base bill, to be debated and heard on 
this floor. To me, that is a good thing.

                              {time}  1330

  To be sure, some of the above issues are addressed by amendments, 
those issues I just mentioned, and they are all going to be debated 
shortly, as soon as we pass this rule and begin debate on the bill.
  So, if you have any concerns with the bill, I would implore my 
colleagues to support the rule which allows for those concerns to be 
debated by the duly elected Members of this body. Amendments will pass 
or fail based on the merits of arguments made by proponents and 
opponents of these ideas, and if at the end of the process the Members 
are still not satisfied with the final product, they can vote against 
it.
  However, to vote against the rule, which would allow this debate to 
take place, suggests satisfaction with the underlying bill as it is 
currently written. And I would understand that position, because I 
support the bill as well. I support passing a 4-year extension that 
would allow for long-term aviation system planning instead of a merely 
short-term cookie-cutter fix that accomplishes very, very little.
  I support tightening our belt and rolling back funding to 2008 levels 
to save taxpayers $4 billion over the next several years.
  I support consolidating aging, obsolete and unnecessary FAA 
facilities and expanding the cost-effective contract tower program, 
which allows airports to utilize privately operated, more efficient 
control towers.
  I support passing a reauthorization that is 100 percent free of 
earmarks, tax increases or passenger facility charges. And the list 
goes on.
  But most importantly, this debate we have here on the floor right now 
is for this particular rule. If you don't support these things, the 
rule allows Members to bring alternative proposals before this House 
for an open and honest debate.
  So, once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation. The committees of jurisdiction have worked to 
provide us a long-term reauthorization that can streamline the 
modernization of our aviation system while ending the practice of 
short-term fixes when it comes to funding this crucial service. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Webster) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of bringing meaningful 
legislation to create jobs to the floor of the House of 
Representatives, the new Republican majority continues to show just how 
out of touch they are. Two weeks ago, it was cutting off funding for 
National Public Radio. Yesterday, it was private school vouchers in 
Washington, D.C. But today's bill is even worse, because this bill will 
actually destroy jobs.
  H.R. 658 starts by reducing the Federal Aviation Administration's 
funding back to the Republicans' favorite sound bite number of FY 2008 
levels. We know that every $1 billion of Federal investment in 
infrastructure creates or sustains approximately 35,000 jobs. That is 
35,000 Americans who can pay their mortgages and stay in their homes, 
35,000 Americans that can better afford to put their kids through 
college, 35,000 Americans that could help our economy to recover.
  Instead, H.R. 658 cuts almost $2 billion from the Airport Improvement 
Program, which provides grants to airports for constructing and 
improving runways and terminals. This provision alone will cost us 
70,000 jobs over the course of this 4-year authorization period.
  H.R. 658's reduced funding levels will result in the layoffs of 
hundreds of safety inspectors, engineers and support personnel. These 
drastic cuts will also delay transitioning our outdated air traffic 
control system to the modern NextGen system. Without 21st century 
infrastructure and technology, the United States cannot keep up with 
our global competitors. It is just that simple.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past, the FAA reauthorization bills have garnered 
a great deal of bipartisan support. Unfortunately, this time is very 
different because, in addition to the inadequate funding levels, this 
bill continues an emerging and disturbing Republican trend toward 
destroying the collective bargaining rights for American workers. From 
Wisconsin to Ohio to Maine, we have seen how Republican politicians are 
attempting to destroy a century of hard-fought labor protections. This 
bill represents more of the same.
  This bill would reverse a National Mediation Board rule that allows a 
majority of those voting in aviation and rail union elections to decide 
the outcome. Instead, tea party extremists want to count workers who 
chose not to vote as automatic ``noes'' against the union.
  I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle would be 
willing to use that same standard in congressional elections? I wonder 
if they would agree that every registered voter who didn't vote, for 
whatever reason, last November would automatically be counted as a 
``no'' vote against them? I doubt it, because in the 2010 midterm 
elections, 40.9 percent of eligible voters cast ballots nationwide.
  Under the standard in this bill, not a single current Member of 
Congress would have won election last year. Not one. Let me make this a 
little more clear. Neither I nor my colleague from the other side of 
the aisle, the new Member representing the Eighth District of Florida, 
would be standing here today if this undemocratic standard is enacted. 
In fact, my friend from Florida would have received only 23.1 percent 
of the vote, well below the 50 percent threshold included in this bill 
that he supports today.
  I ask my friend from Florida, where in the Constitution does it say 
that any registered voter who doesn't cast a vote in an election has 
their vote counted as a ``no''? If this standard doesn't make sense for 
Members of Congress, if we are unwilling to use it on ourselves, then 
it isn't fair for working people trying to organize.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, unfortunately, abandons a long and proud 
tradition of bipartisanship on the Transportation Committee, which I am 
honored to say I once had the privilege of serving on, and I urge my 
colleagues to reject this rule.
  By the way, we have yet to have a truly open rule in this Congress. 
Notwithstanding the promises that we would see nothing but open rules, 
we have yet to have a single truly open rule. So I urge my colleagues 
to reject this rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say this: I came here to talk about the rule. I 
didn't come here to talk necessarily about the underlying bill, 
although I do support the underlying bill. The rule is what is before 
us right now, not necessarily the policy that is underneath

[[Page H2124]]

it. We will be discussing that. There will be amendments offered that 
could change many of the things spoken of by my good friend from 
Massachusetts.
  But I ran for election to this House of Representatives based on the 
fact that I told people America is not broken; Washington is. One of 
the things that was broken in Washington was the process. The process 
that I saw, the process that was inherited by our own Speaker, was a 
process based on a pyramid of power, and that pyramid of power was so 
high, it was as high as the Space Needle, probably, and a few people at 
the top of that pyramid are the ones that made the decision, not anyone 
else.
  So why were there so many closed rules? Because the pyramid of power 
said this is what we're going to do and this is what you've got to do, 
and you've got to go vote, unfortunately. That is what I came here to 
change, and I think the Speaker did, too, and he created a process by 
which there were amendments offered on the floor of this House on these 
bills so people can address the problems that they have.
  So he has pushed down the pyramid of power and spread out the base so 
every single Member had an opportunity to file an amendment, and almost 
every one of those were made available to be used on the floor of this 
House by this rule. It was done because we want the membership, as the 
Speaker has said, he wants this to be the people's House. He wants the 
people to have an opportunity to have their Member heard on particular 
issues and particular amendments.
  Yes, there will be debate on this bill, there will be debate on the 
underlying measure, and we will be talking about that and I will be 
voting for that. But that is not what we are here to talk about right 
now, and, that is, there is a process. It was broken, and we are doing 
everything we can to fix it. This rule helps do that.
  This rule is a rule that allows for open and honest debate on 
amendments, on the bill itself, and, to me, that is a great improvement 
over where we have been in the past. So push down that pyramid of 
power. Spread out the base. Let every Member be a player. Do it by 
voting for this rule.
  I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Webster). I understand this is the first rule he is managing, and 
you're doing a brilliant job so far. Hopefully that will be the case 
for the next 50 minutes as well.
  I want to also congratulate Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee 
for coming up with this rule. I have been here in the minority, I have 
been here in the majority, and the 33 amendments made in order under 
this rule beat by 28 the number made in order when we last considered 
this piece of legislation. So congratulations to you.

                              {time}  1340

  Sadly, I think for my friends in my party, one of the amendments made 
in order is mine. And it's what's caused me--although I fully support 
the rule; I'm going to vote for the rule--it's what causes me some 
angst relative to the bill.
  I have to give a little bit of context and history. I was on the 
Transportation Committee when the first reauthorization of this bill 
was supposed to take place. This bill hadn't been reauthorized since 
2003. This bill is about America's future because, among other things, 
it takes our air traffic control system from ground-based radar to 
satellite-based so that we can do a lot of wonderful things and 
continue to be the world leader. So we need to get this bill done.
  But a funny thing keeps happening to this bill on the way to the 
bank, I guess. We first had a fight between Federal Express and UPS. It 
really doesn't have a lot to do with NextGen, but that screwed up the 
bill for a while. Then we had a fight with the air traffic controllers 
in the Bush administration, and that screwed up the bill for a while. 
Then we had a problem with something called PFCs; how much a passenger 
pays as a landing charge. Those fees, of course, are then turned into 
runways and infrastructure and employ a lot of people. So we didn't 
have a bill.
  And then we almost got a bill. In the last Congress, Jim Oberstar and 
John Mica and Jerry Costello and Tom Petri did a really nice job, sent 
the bill over to the Senate, and a couple of Senators decided that they 
wanted to favor one airline over others and have additional flights--
long-distance flights--from Reagan National Airport to their homes, I 
guess, on the west coast. And so one airline would have received 48 
percent of the benefit and everybody else would have gotten the scraps. 
We didn't have a bill. Again, you say, Why do people get frustrated 
with Washington? What do any of those things have to do with whether or 
not we continue to be the world leader in aviation?
  So now we come to this bill. And I have to tell you there is a poison 
pill in this bill. The Senate will not take up the bill as currently 
written. The President issued a statement of administration policy last 
night indicating he will veto the bill. And it's all over this one 
issue. This one issue doesn't belong in the bill.
  Now, there are people around here that love unions and the unions can 
do no wrong. There are people around here that hate unions and unions 
can't do anything right. But what happened is the airlines and the 
railroads are organized and regulated under the Rail Labor Act, as 
opposed to the National Labor Relations Board Act. It's been that way 
since the 1930s. And for years the rule was that--75 years, actually--
that if they wanted to certify a union, you had to get a majority of 
people in the whole class.
  And Mr. McGovern is exactly right. Can you imagine there's about 
200,000 people that are registered to vote in my congressional 
district. And so I stand for election, and if I got 70 percent, so 
100,000 people show up--only half, which is about what we're averaging 
in this country--100,000 people show up, 70,000 vote for me. I'm pretty 
happy, popping the champagne corks, thinking I got a nice election 
going. But under the structure that's been in existence for all these 
years, those 100,000 people that didn't show up, they're counted 
against me. They're counted as ``no'' votes. Americans don't understand 
that kind of election process. It just doesn't make any sense. And the 
argument and the pushback against this is, Well, it's been that way for 
75 years.
  Now, the Speaker, I know, is a learned historian of American history. 
When the Constitution was written, only white men who owned property 
could vote in this country. And I'll bet if you asked the white guys, 
they were probably pretty happy about that, and they would say it works 
okay. For another hundred years, the women in this country couldn't 
vote. And maybe if you asked some of the men, they were probably happy 
about that as well. Just because something has been around for a long 
time doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair. So the National 
Mediation Board, which has jurisdiction, changed the rule. They had a 
hearing. They asked for comments. They had a public meeting. They took 
a vote. And they changed the rule to the more fair procedure wherein 
those people that actually show up and vote, that's going to be the 
vote.
  Now, have horrible things happened since this rule went into effect? 
No. One of the prime proponents of this rule change, Delta Airlines, 
they've had four elections since the rules were changed. The union has 
lost all four. And this dumb argument I heard the other day that only 
three people can come and form a union, that's nonsense. They had a 94 
percent turnout at their election. So this encourages turnout.
  The other thing I just want to mention is there's a lawsuit pending 
on this. The Air Transport Association sued the National Mediation 
Board. They lost.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. It's now in the Court of Appeals. We do our darnedest 
to say we're going to drain the swamp and do all the other stuff around 
here. But in this lawsuit--they've got a lot of members, the Air 
Transport Association--but here are the airlines--and I

[[Page H2125]]

want everybody listening and following at home figure out what's going 
on here. The following members of the Air Transport Association opted 
out of this lawsuit: American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Southwest 
Airlines, UPS Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways.
  This is a bad deal and we shouldn't be doing it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his efforts on 
trying to promote fairness and would reiterate that the issue in 
question has no business being in this bill. This should not have been 
put into this bill. I consider it a poison pill. Again, I think it 
reflects this troubling pattern that we see all across the country 
where my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be siding 
against working people.
  I would also just say about the process that we were told that there 
would be open rules, open rules, open rules. We have not had one. Every 
member on the Republican side in the Rules Committee has been given an 
opportunity to vote for an open rule, and they have voted it down every 
single time.
  This afternoon we're going to take up this bill, this deem and pass 
bill, or whatever people are calling it, which I think is not 
constitutionally sound but nonetheless we're bringing it up. We'll have 
another opportunity then to have a vote on an open rule. I wonder where 
my friends on the Republican side will be on opening up that process. 
My guess is it will come to the floor either under a closed rule or 
very restrictive process. So let's be clear: There's not been one truly 
open rule yet.
  At this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member on the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I want to 
congratulate my colleague, Mr. Webster, on management of his first 
rule.
  I rise today in opposition to the Shuster amendment that would 
undermine the strong flight safety regulations passed by this Congress 
and meant to protect air travelers throughout the Nation.
  Last July, Congress came together to pass the Airline Safety and 
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. It was landmark 
legislation requiring the FAA to implement the findings of the National 
Transportation Safety Board, which many of us thought the FAA already 
did, to establish a pilot records database to provide airlines with 
fast, electronic access to a pilot's record; to direct all airlines and 
Web sites that sell airline tickets to disclose who is operating each 
flight; and, of vital importance to those of us who live in western New 
York, make the necessary changes that address the underreported and 
deadly issue of pilot fatigue and inability to fly in bad conditions. 
My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that this amendment stands to undermine all 
of these reforms. It would lay additional layers to the FAA's already 
cumbersome rulemaking process, only delaying what we fought so hard to 
create last year. And we must not go back.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing western New York, 
and flight safety is one of our highest priorities. It was outside 
Buffalo, in the suburb of Clarence, New York, on a snowy February 
evening that Continental Connection Flight 3407, operated by regional 
carrier Colgan Air, crashed to the ground, killing all 49 passengers 
and one man on the ground. It was a tragedy deeply felt in western New 
York and sent shock waves throughout the aviation community.
  As we discovered more details that fateful evening, we learned that 
the young pilot had never been trained on stall recovery techniques, 
which were needed that snowy night, and he had failed five different 
tests, but his employer only knew about two of those failures. One 
pilot had slept in the airport in a chair. The other had taken a red-
eye flight from Seattle just the night before. It exposed delinquencies 
in commercial aviation that desperately need solutions. Pilots are 
often exhausted and underpaid. Discrepancies in the training 
requirements exist between major carriers and their regional partners. 
And pilot records are inconsistent, meaning a pilot's entire flying 
record was not available to his employer.
  In the 2 years that followed, we took tremendous effort to learn from 
the lessons of that painful night. Led by heroic family members of 
victims of Flight 3407, Congress passed the Airline Safety and Federal 
Aviation Administration Extension Act. I want to take a moment to 
recognize the courage and tenacity of those family members. In the past 
2 years, they worked through the grief of their own loss and advocated 
for safer skies for the rest of us. Collectively, they have made 40 
trips to Washington on their own money, constantly reminding Members of 
the House, Senate, and administration that improving aviation safety is 
never a cause that can be pushed aside.

                              {time}  1350

  They have become the most effective group of citizens I have seen in 
my time in government. Every one of us, and we all do almost every 
week, who steps into an airplane owes them tremendously, and I am 
pleased to call them my friends.
  The Nation cannot thank them individually, but this Congress can 
thank them by voting ``no'' on the Shuster amendment. Because of their 
work and of those in Congress, there is no better way to mark the 
lessons we have learned as a Nation about flight safety than by 
honoring the people who died on that cold and snowy night. This has 
been the mission of their families, and it has become a mission of 
mine.
  Any attempt to turn back the clock on landmark provisions we passed 
last July will hurt everyone, including all the Members of Congress 
who, as I say, mostly fly back and forth to our districts each week.
  To think that the pilot flying that plane is so fatigued that he or 
she is not at their peak is astounding and dangerous to all of us. 
These safety provisions must stay intact. They must apply to all 
pilots. It should not take another tragedy for us to have to relearn 
the lessons of flight safety.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, which should 
not be in this bill.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I still want to bring it back to the issue at hand. 
We're talking about a rule here, and I have found that no matter what 
you're making--you could be making widgets or you could be making 
laws--if the process is flawed, whatever you manufacture, whatever you 
make is flawed. And that's what we're trying to improve here.
  The previous Congress, I believe, had a flawed process. This is an 
improvement. It allows for 33 amendments. I will remind everyone there 
were 18 extensions of this particular piece of legislation over the 
past several years. Not one of them ever, ever had an amendment offered 
on the floor of this House. This is one piece of legislation with 33 
amendments being offered. That, to me, is an improved process.
  What happens when you improve the process? When you improve the 
process, the product is always going to improve. I have a business, and 
I know, Mr. Speaker, you do. And you know that everything you can do 
starts with first making that process better. That's what we're doing. 
That's what this rule does. It improves the process, and by improving 
the process, the product that's produced by this House--which is not in 
question right now because there are 33 amendments filed for this 
underlying bill that have been made available for this House to debate. 
So we don't know what the final product is going to be, and we'll have 
to wait and see. That's a whole lot better process than coming in and 
voting ``yes'' or ``no'' on a particular piece of legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let's talk about process. Notwithstanding the promises of open rules, 
we've been here for 13 weeks and not a single open rule. Not a single 
open rule. And I will tell you that there's something wrong with the 
process when after all this time we have yet to do anything to help 
create jobs or promote jobs in this country. Jobs are the most 
important issue.
  A couple of weeks ago, we were dealing with National Public Radio. It 
was brought to the floor under an emergency rule. An emergency rule. 
What

[[Page H2126]]

kind of process is that? You would think that we were going to talk 
about something important like the potential war in Libya or about how 
we put people back to work. Instead an emergency rule was utilized to 
bring a bill to defund National Public Radio. There's something wrong 
with this process when we're talking about that and not talking about 
jobs.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  I'm here to talk about the abandonment of essential air service in 
rural America.
  My problem with this bill, among others, is that this legislation 
turns its back on rural America. The FAA budget is about providing a 
transportation system that is going to serve all of America, all of our 
taxpayers in urban and in rural areas. And this bill is an assault on 
the $200 million a year that had been available for essential air 
services in rural America.
  How is it that rural America gets left behind? We have needs, we have 
companies, we have taxpayers, and we have travelers. And we can have 
that commitment to rural America be continued, not abandoned.
  Let me give an example. The Rutland Southern Vermont Regional Airport 
serves southern Vermont. That county is rural, 63,000 people. There's 
no interstate access, Mr. Speaker. To help ensure the three daily 
flights to and from Boston Logan International Airport, the air 
services are subsidized at $800,000 a year. It's a good and efficient 
use of taxpayer money. That airport has the fifth-lowest EAS subsidy in 
the country, but it's had the greatest number of passenger enplanements 
since 1985.
  This relatively small investment has spurred private investment in 
the region. We've got a GE plant there. We've got the local hospital. 
It resulted in $25 million in economic impact for the region, and in 
the past year bookings have risen by 25 percent.
  So the question I have is, yes, kick the tires on any program. Make 
them accountable. But how is it accountable and how is it responsible 
to rural America when the budget gets smashed, and we're going to leave 
the Rutland regional airports of this country behind, and we're turning 
our back on the prospects and hope of rural America?
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the House again we're talking 
about this rule. And there was an opportunity to file amendments on all 
the issues that are being brought up.
  There was an amendment filed on that very issue. It wasn't my fault 
it was withdrawn. It was the sponsor's fault it was withdrawn. Had it 
not been, there might have been a difference. It might have been heard 
here. We might have been able to discuss and wouldn't have to discuss 
it while we're discussing a rule. But for some reason it was withdrawn.
  I also want to remind the membership that last Congress, zero open 
rules. Zero. None. No amendments were offered on this floor. It was 
like a silence that existed for a long period of time. No Member could 
stand up and give an amendment to any type of piece of legislation. 
That's a sad thing. That, to me, is a broken process.
  And I'm glad Chairman Dreier came because he too, along with the 
Speaker, has said we want to have as open a process as we possibly can. 
We want to allow for amendments. We want to allow for opportunities in 
a process that's better than last time; that as we improve this 
process, we're also going to improve the policy that we present to this 
floor and to the public once it passes and it's signed by the 
President.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have listened to my 
friend from Worcester keep throwing out this term ``open rule,'' ``open 
rule,'' that we've had all these chances for open rules and we haven't 
passed a single open rule.
  First, let me say, based on the definition that our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle had, we've had open rules. Bills considered 
under what we correctly describe as a modified open rule were described 
by our friends when they were in the majority as an open rule. Now, 
having said that, what we repeatedly said was that since in the entire 
4 years of Speaker Pelosi's leadership of this House, we had one 
measure in 4 years considered under an open rule, we said in our Pledge 
to America that we wanted to make sure that the appropriations process 
is done under an open amendment process. And we're going to do our 
doggonedest to make sure that we have an open amendment process for 
consideration of that.
  And I think it's important to note that if you look at, as Mr. 
Webster said so well--and I want to congratulate him on his management 
of his first rule here in the House--making 33 amendments in order has 
not in any way predetermined the outcome of the measure when we had all 
of these extensions that went on for FAA. And my friend Mr. Mica, the 
chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is here. 
We know that we've had these constant renewals without a single 
amendment being offered. So we're going to have 33 amendments.
  So our commitment to a more open process has, in fact, been met and 
exceeded in the eyes of many. And I will tell you the praise that we've 
gotten from Members in the leadership on the Democratic side of the 
aisle for having gone through all of the amendments that we did--it was 
virtually unprecedented--on H.R. 1, the measure that allowed us to work 
overnight and have a modified open rule, meaning any Member could offer 
a germane amendment. It was, as I said, virtually unprecedented. So I 
am very proud at what we've done, certainly juxtaposed to what we've 
seen in the last 4 years. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that by virtue of 
our doing this, we're allowing the people of this country to have a 
chance to be heard. That has not been there for quite a long period of 
time.
  I again thank my friend for his superb management.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I've listened with great interest. My friend from 
California (Mr. Dreier) kind of amended a little bit what the 
Republican majority promised. I think I heard him right, that open 
rules now are only limited to appropriations bills and nothing else.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I never said that we're going to limit an open amendment 
process, open rules, to the appropriations process. What I said was and 
the commitment that we made was that, since we had the appropriations 
process completely shut down in the last two sessions of Congress, we 
wanted to now have this done in an open amendment process.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
  It seems like, to me, a little bit of revisionist history, but I 
guess later this afternoon we're going to rewrite the Constitution, so 
why not rewrite history? We were promised open rules. Under the 
definition of an ``open rule,'' we have not had one single open rule in 
this Congress. Again, this afternoon, we are going to be dealing in the 
Rules Committee with the demon and pass a bill.
  We had on this floor, not too long ago, the reading of the 
Constitution. I guess my friends on the other side of the aisle weren't 
paying attention, because what they are trying to do this afternoon, in 
my opinion, or, I think, in anybody's opinion, doesn't fit with the 
Constitution. It will be interesting to see whether or not that comes 
to the floor under an open process. My guess is it will be a very 
restrictive process, which we've become accustomed to.
  At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to an amendment 
made in order under this rule, an

[[Page H2127]]

amendment which would block the implementation of regulations to 
prevent pilot fatigue.
  Our current pilot fatigue regulations are outdated and have been on 
the books for decades. In that time, we have seen many preventable 
accidents occur due to pilot fatigue, including the crash of Flight 
3407, near Buffalo, in which 50 people died 2 years ago.
  In response to that tragedy and after over a year of consideration, 
last year the House and the Senate unanimously passed legislation to 
update our pilot fatigue rules. They are pending implementation by the 
Federal Aviation Administration.
  These reforms have been on the National Transportation Safety Board's 
``most wanted'' list for the past 20 years. They are based on science, 
on fact, on real input from the professional aviation community. 
However, the amendment offered by Mr. Shuster would have the effect of 
blocking their implementation.
  Pilots are people who have a huge responsibility to the flying 
public. It doesn't matter whether they are flying a cargo plane, a 
regional plane or a large passenger plane. They need adequate rest to 
perform their duties.
  Quite simply, these pilot fatigue reforms will save lives. Fifty 
lives were needlessly lost 2 years ago. Last year, we voted unanimously 
to enact these reforms due to the dogged advocacy and determination of 
the families who lost their loved ones in that crash. These families 
want nothing more than to make our airways safer and to prevent this 
tragedy from happening again.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with these families, to stand with 
aviation safety, and to please vote against the Shuster amendment.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. First, I thought I would start off by acknowledging the 
efforts to have open rules and so on and by giving you a little praise, 
but you're doing enough to give yourselves praise, so I guess I won't 
have to do that today.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I rise to address yet 
another attack on our Nation's workers and the middle class which have 
been snuck into the FAA Reauthorization Act. As a senior member of the 
committee and as a pilot myself, I am appalled that Republicans have 
chosen to play politics with legislation as important as this--one that 
ensures our skies are safe and operating at peak performance.
  In H.R. 658, Republicans march on in their crusade against working 
Americans and middle class families by targeting union representation 
elections for hardworking Americans. Under this legislation, 
Republicans would deny transportation workers and their unions the 
basic tenets of democracy by ordering an absent vote in a 
representation election to be counted as a ``no'' vote. By this math, 
not a single one of us serving in the House today would be here when we 
compare voting populations in our districts with the percentage of the 
``yes'' votes we all mustered. On average, we would have earned about 
25 percent of the vote.
  In targeting our Nation's transportation workers, Republicans have 
once again drawn a line in the sand between the needs of middle class 
America and protecting the interests of CEOs and Wall Street, and it is 
obvious which side they're on.
  Instead of stripping our aviation and rail workers of their 
democratic rights, why don't the Republicans look within their own 
ranks and apply this election concept to Wall Street? From here on out, 
make every corporation that received government assistance count an 
absent shareholder vote as a ``no'' vote when considering executive 
compensation and bonus packages.
  But that won't happen.
  Instead of focusing on real issues like jobs and education, 
Republicans are attacking middle class rail and aviation workers who do 
dangerous jobs to keep our transportation system going.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with the middle class workers who put 
their lives on the line every day at work to make sure that goods and 
people are being moved across this Nation. Vote ``yes'' on the 
amendment to be offered by Congressmen LaTourette and Costello.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule because it includes a manager's 
amendment with problematic provisions.
  The manager's amendment will prevent the disclosure and use of safety 
data. It provides immunity to all persons and organizations involved in 
the implementation of a safety management system, and it provides total 
immunity for volunteer pilots, volunteer pilot organizations and 
referring agencies.
  By preventing the disclosure of safety information, the manager's 
amendment severely hinders the ability of people injured by the 
negligence of the aviation industry, or their surviving family members, 
from obtaining crucial information that they need in a court of law to 
determine whether or not their loss was due to the industry's 
negligence. Essentially, it allows the negligent airline companies and 
their employees to hide and to keep evidence of their negligence 
secret.
  Additionally, by granting immunity to any ``person that is required 
to implement a safety management system'' and for volunteer pilots and 
pilot organizations, the manager's amendment would potentially provide 
immunity to the entire aviation industry. This immunity provision is so 
broad that it would protect individuals who negligently fail to follow 
a safety standard even if that failure led to massive passenger deaths.
  Madam Speaker, this is outrageous, and it essentially asks the 
airline passengers to put their lives in the hands of aviation teams 
which could possibly have no liability for any negligence that occurs 
during a flight. This is unnecessary because we already have in law the 
Volunteer Protection Act, which provides immunity only for volunteers. 
This amendment will interrupt the careful balance achieved through that 
act by giving volunteer organizations and others immunity as well.
  The airline industry is free to purchase liability insurance to 
ensure that people are protected from the negligent acts of its 
employees. This amendment exempts the industry from having the 
responsibility for the safety of the public and its employees, and it 
is certainly not in the best interests of the flying public.
  This rule should be defeated so that that amendment cannot be 
offered.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to go back again to where we were. We are 
talking about a rule. We are talking about a process, a good process, 
that allows for amendments. I know that the other side is thinking, 
Wow, we've got to come in here and argue this bill. We've got to argue 
the underlying part. You don't. You've got plenty of time to do it 
because this rule will allow for good, lengthy debate, not only on the 
bill, itself, but also on the 33 amendments that have been offered.
  I would encourage them to think about the fact that this rule is what 
we are voting on. This rule is a good rule and an open process, one 
that allows for every Member to participate. I would tell them, again, 
to vote for this rule. That's my response to any of the criticisms of 
this bill.

                              {time}  1410

  Yes, they're going to be addressed by an amendment. Come make your 
case, and see if you can pass it.
  I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. The gentleman from Florida is correct, Madam Speaker, that 
this is about the rule, and the Rules Committee serves a very important 
purpose because we have 435 Members.

[[Page H2128]]

When we come to the floor, you just can't have chaos. There has to be 
some structure. All Members are afforded the opportunity to speak if we 
go through our regular business.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I won't at this time because I have very limited time and 
you have lots of time left, so I won't yield. And mine is limited.
  And that's part of the process. Again, I was just yielded 5 minutes. 
So the Rules Committee sets the order of debate, how much time there 
shall be, how many amendments that are submitted.
  Now, I've been here awhile. My family's been around Congress awhile. 
The last 4 years, for anyone to come and say that this is an unfair 
rule is so far from being accurate. Fifty amendments were offered. As 
the chair of the committee, I pay attention to the amendments. I went 
before the Rules Committee and asked that they carefully consider 
these; and what you want to do is make sure you don't have duplicate, 
you don't have nongermane, and be fair to Members so everybody gets a 
chance.
  Some 48 were offered, 48 actually I understand. Thirty-nine were left 
after Members withdrew them. Thirty-three were accepted. That leaves 
six that they took out. If that's unfair in any way, it's hard to 
believe. So we have been fair. Mr. Webster's been fair, Mr. Dreier's 
been fair. I've never seen a fairer process. And in the last 4 years, 
when the place was run under basically martial law, you couldn't bring 
amendments up.
  Then, how did we get ourselves in this situation? For 4 years they 
had complete control of this body. They could have passed anything. But 
what did they do, they passed things but they passed so much and spent 
so much that the American people threw them out. They had enough votes 
in the House to pass anything. They had enough votes in the Senate to 
pass anything, and the last 2 years they've had a President that would 
sign anything.
  This aviation bill, 17 times they did an extension. I was the 
chairman in 2003 when we did a 4-year bill. We did a 4-year bill. It 
expired in 2007. My bill expired that I helped draft and author in 
2003, expired after 4 years in 2007. Seventeen times they left the 
aviation policy, the funding formula, all the programs for safety and 
everything go on the most erratic basis you could imagine. Seventeen 
extensions, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. Go talk to the 
FAA administrator. And every time they did that, what they did to the 
disruption of one of the most important industries in the United 
States; 9.2 percent of our gross domestic product and activity is in 
the aviation industry, and they had 4 years to pass it. Unbelievable.
  In less than 4 months, we've already worked with the United States 
Senate. They've passed the bill. We've passed it through two other 
committees, and now our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is 
bringing it up here, under a fair rule, one of the most open rules with 
open participation by all Members on every side. So don't talk to me 
about fairness in rules. This is fair.
  Let's get it done and pass this rule, get the people's business done 
and get people working in the United States of America, instead of more 
hot air passing through this Chamber.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I am amazed by the comments of the gentleman from 
Florida when it comes to rules because when we were in charge of the 
House, I don't recall a single time where the gentleman came before the 
Rules Committee and did not advocate for an open rule. This is not an 
open rule.
  Members who have ideas that they want to bring to the floor in 
response to amendments that are being offered will be denied that 
opportunity, and there is a restriction on the ability of Members to be 
able to participate in the debate. Under a true open rule, every Member 
would have at least 5 minutes, if they chose, to be able to talk on a 
bill. So it's interesting this revisionist history by the Republicans 
who promised open rules but have not produced a single open rule yet. 
That's just a fact, and we can spin it any way you want to, but you 
promised open rules, and we haven't seen a single one yet.
  Now, as far as the bill goes, H.R. 658, one of the reasons why we are 
concerned is because this is a job-destroying bill. We should be 
obsessed in this Congress about protecting jobs and creating jobs; yet, 
what we have seen is attention being given to everything else but jobs. 
A couple of weeks ago, we spent a whole week on National Public Radio, 
should we defund National Public Radio when people are out of work. And 
here you bring a bill, H.R. 658, to the floor that will destroy 
American jobs with $4 billion in cuts that will have dire consequences 
for our Nation's infrastructure, jobs and economy.
  The aviation industry, I will remind my friend, accounts for nearly 
11 million American jobs and $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. 
This Republican bill would cut the airport improvement grants for 
runway maintenance and safety enhancements by almost $2 billion, 
costing us 70,000 jobs, especially hurting small airports. The Senate 
measure, passed with a bipartisan majority, adds tens of thousands of 
jobs.
  Now, there are cuts in this bill that would also lead to a reduction 
in safety personnel and delay important air safety initiatives, a bad 
choice for the flying public as highlighted by the recent Reagan 
National incident.
  In February, the FAA administrator under President George W. Bush, 
Marion Blakey, stated that ``the prospect is really devastating to our 
jobs and to our future, if we really have to roll back to 2008 levels 
and stop NextGen in its tracks.''

  This bill also eliminates essential air service for 110 rural 
communities needed to connect them with global commerce, support local 
jobs and spur economic growth. It's important to invest in our 
infrastructure in order to keep this economy strong.
  And this bill, as has been said over and over again, extends the 
assault on American workers, collective bargaining, and the middle 
class to workers in the aviation and railroad sectors by overturning a 
rule for union elections which, as with other elections, calls for a 
majority of votes cast to win. This continues this pattern, this 
assault on American workers.
  I ask my friends on the Republican side, when did the American worker 
become the bad guy? My friends on the other side go out of their way to 
protect Wall Street. Under their open process, when they brought up 
their H.R. 1, their bill that cuts all these essential programs, they 
wrote it in a way that it protected the taxpayer subsidies to big oil 
companies so we couldn't get at them. It protected all these special 
interest tax loopholes that are there for big business and big 
corporations. And after what happened to our economy, this mess that 
was created in large part by Wall Street, here we go again with this 
Republican majority attacking working families, workers.
  Well, someone has got to stand up for working families and workers, 
and I'm glad that there are Members on my side of the aisle that are 
willing to do that. This controversial provision should not be in this 
bill. This is a throwaway to the extreme right wing, and it should not 
be in this bill.
  Madam Speaker, let me close by saying we need to start talking about 
jobs and how we protect jobs and create jobs. This bill, because of the 
dramatic cuts in this bill, will destroy jobs. You want to find 
savings, go after taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies. You want to 
find savings, then if you're going to fight these wars, pay for it. You 
want to find savings, close some of these grotesque tax loopholes for 
the richest interests in this country. Instead, you go after things 
that help average American families, that go after American workers.
  This is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, which 
is not open, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican colleagues 
and I are committed to providing a more accountable, transparent, and 
open process than the minority allowed during previous Congresses. 
Today's bill is another step in that right direction, an

[[Page H2129]]

example of the House Republicans' commitment to reform the way things 
are done here in Washington. The underlying bill has bipartisan 
support, it went through regular order, and it was provided a 
structured rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to offer 
amendments, their ideas, in an open and honest debate.
  While I am supportive of the underlying legislation, this vote on the 
rule that provides an open and transparent process, which allows 33 
amendments from both sides of the aisle, where ideas and policy will 
rise or fall on the basis of their merit and not on any particular 
sponsor's party affiliation, this is what the American people expect in 
their elected officials.
  I would like to introduce to you one of the new Americans that was 
born last night at 10:50. This is Claire. She is our seventh 
granddaughter, and we're excited about her. And she, just like the rest 
of the American people, believes that it is an expectation that is 
fulfilled by this rule, the rule that we have here before us, which is 
that we will have an opportunity to express ourselves in a real, 
transparent, open way on amendments and the underlying bill and have 
the opportunity to present ourselves and afford ourselves a chance to 
vote on each one of those proposals.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of 
this rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 872.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249, 
nays 171, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 205]

                               YEAS--249

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--171

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barton (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Campbell
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Hanna
     Maloney
     Moore
     Olver
     Polis
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. BERKLEY and Messrs. PASCRELL and CARDOZA changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FLORES, TIBERI, and HEINRICH changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________