[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.
____________________