[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 109 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5251-H5257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2553, AIRPORT AND AIRWAY EXTENSION
ACT OF 2011, PART IV
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 357 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 357
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to
extend the airport improvement program, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
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
may have 5 legislative days in which 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 to support this rule and the
underlying bill. House Resolution 357 provides for a closed rule for
consideration
[[Page H5252]]
of H.R. 2553, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV.
So far in the 112th Congress, three short-term extensions have been
signed into law to allow for the continued aviation trust fund revenue
collections and aviation program authority necessary to operate
America's airports. The latest short-term extension expires this
Friday, July 22.
H.R. 2553 would extend the program for a little less than 2 months,
until September 16. The bill maintains current funding levels for FAA,
its employees, and airports around the country. The bill includes two
simple Essential Air Service (EAS) reform provisions, one of which has
already passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
Both the House and Senate have passed separate versions of multiyear
reauthorization bills, so this short-term extension will hopefully give
the House and Senate the time needed to work out the differences
between the two bills so we can stop kicking the can down the road.
To say that, that is exactly what we are doing. For starters, this is
the 21st extension of the FAA program since the last reauthorization.
We have been at this exact juncture 20 other times. The last
reauthorization, shepherded by Chairman Mica, was over 7\1/2\ years
ago. That is a long time. Since September 30, 2007, the FAA has been
operating on a series of short-term, stopgap extensions.
Quite simply, it is time to stop doing this. It is too much. The
safety of our airline passengers is something we ought to take into
consideration and pass a necessary, meaningful and long-term FAA
reauthorization.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
has worked to provide us yet another short-term extension which will
ensure the continued safety of airline passengers, with the hope that
the Senate and the House can finally come to the table and realize a
long-term reauthorization.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Florida for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV,
extends aviation trust fund revenue collections and aviation program
authority at current funding levels through September 16 of this year
while also imposing new restrictions on the Essential Air Service
program.
Frankly, it is no substitute for a long-term Federal Aviation
Administration authorization, and casts further doubt on airport
construction and safety improvements instead of ensuring air passenger
safety, creating jobs, or investing in air traffic control
modernization.
{time} 1230
As I'm sure most Americans would agree, the word ``uncertain'' does
not belong in a conversation about our Nation's aviation system and it
certainly does not belong in the same sentence as air passenger safety.
I note a friend in the House who is a pilot agrees with that statement.
Over the course of almost 4 years, however, great uncertainty
surrounding long-term funding for the FAA has threatened and continues
to threaten both. Without steady funding, the FAA is unable to best
manage the long-term programs and projects that are vital to the future
of our aviation system, including lifesaving airport safety
improvements and the transition to the very important Next Generation
Air Transportation System that we know as NextGen.
Make no mistake, the United States has the safest, most efficient
aviation system in the world. We can all thank our highly skilled,
dedicated aviation professionals for that. But in order to ensure that
it remains that way, we must stop kicking the FAA reauthorization can
further down the road. I know these cans around here get tired of being
kicked down the road.
The measure before us is the 21st short-term FAA extension to be
considered since the last FAA authorization bill. Vision 100 expired at
the end of September 2007. I repeat: This is the 21st short-term FAA
extension we have considered in less than 4 years. It is also the sixth
extension of operation authority for fiscal year 2011. Meanwhile, there
has been no progress for weeks on a long-term authorization.
While short-term extensions have their place in the legislative
process, they should be the exception, not the rule, especially when
authorizing the important safety and modernization activities of the
FAA. The extension not only fails to address the long-term aviation
needs of our Nation, but also denies many of our small and rural
communities the air service and economic opportunity made possible by
the Essential Air Service program.
By including these policy riders, House Republicans risk a shutdown
of our aviation system. Senator Rockefeller, after our Rules Committee
meeting last night, made that very clear in a letter from him to
Chairman Mica.
Instead of appointing conferees, as the Senate did 100 days ago,
House Republicans seem to be pointing fingers and effectively forcing a
vote on the future of the EAS program ahead of conference legislation.
While House Republicans continue to play the blame game with the
Senate, American businesses and workers are losing out on much needed
economic opportunities.
Aviation, as we all know, is an economic engine for the United
States, contributing $1.3 trillion to our economy, accounting for more
than 11.5 million jobs and $396 billion in earnings, and contributing
5.6 percent to our Nation's gross domestic product.
Without full-year funding for the FAA, local officials are unable to
move forward with project proposals. Because of this, the FAA is an
estimated $800 million to $1 billion behind in obligating funding,
which translates to tens of thousands of jobs. Furthermore, if the FAA
is unable to utilize these funds before the end of the fiscal year,
they risk being reprogrammed or rescinded. This, in my view, is
irresponsible, dangerous, and unacceptable. The FAA will have to do
more with less, which reduces its ability to help airports finance
safety improvements such as special runway overshoot areas, runway
resurfacing, proper signage and lighting, and equipment to prevent snow
and ice buildup on runways.
These measures not only save lives but increase efficiency at a time
when air traffic is projected to continue growing significantly.
According to the FAA, the number of passengers on U.S. airlines is
forecasted to increase by about 75 percent within the next 20 years and
to reach 1 billion passengers annually within the next decade. We must
invest more in our aviation system, not less. Long-term FAA
authorization should be an immediate priority.
In the 110th and 111th Congresses, the House, under Democratic
leadership, passed FAA reauthorization bills that would have created
jobs, improved aviation safety, and provided the FAA with the tools
necessary to modernize airport and air traffic control infrastructure.
My friends on the other side should do the responsible thing and
appoint conferees so that the House and Senate can work out their
differences and finalize a long-term FAA reauthorization bill.
Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle are clearly
preoccupied with further isolating small and rural communities than
moving this debate forward. In fact, the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee has held no hearings specifically on the EAS
program this year, nor did they hold a markup on the measure before us.
The Senate is not going to pass this. The letter from Senator
Rockefeller makes it very clear, as the chair of the relevant committee
in the Senate, that this is not going to pass in its form with the
policy riders attached. Yet, without the ability to offer amendments on
the floor, as I requested in the Rules Committee last night, to
consider a clean extension, one free of the policy riders that will
hurt our small and rural communities, we face a shutdown. I believe my
good friend from Florida (Mr. Webster) said on Friday this short-term
extension would expire and then our aviation system stands to shut
down. That would be most unfortunate.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
[[Page H5253]]
Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I'd like to thank
my colleagues on the Rules Committee for so expeditiously bringing up
this rule for consideration this afternoon of I think it's the 21st
temporary extension of the reauthorization of the FAA legislation.
This reauthorization has been held hostage for several years, and it
is not cost-free. It's interfering with the efficiency of operations,
the ability to plan and to expend funds on needed airport improvements
all across the country. So we're paying a price for this sort of thing,
and I really don't think we should be allowing people to assert that
they have the right unilaterally to hold up the whole process, that
it's their way or the highway, especially when what we're doing in this
particular mild change to reform a needed part of this legislation,
Essential Air Service, which is badly in need of reform, is basically
acceding to language that's already in the Senate bill. By agreeing to
the bill that in this respect has passed the other House, this is
nonnegotiable that we can be so bold as to simply say, Fine, we'll
agree to the language that you have which basically provides that if an
airport is within 90 miles of a major airport, it's not eligible for
Essential Air Service.
{time} 1240
The other provides that the cap on subsidy from the Federal
Government would be $1,000 per passenger.
Now, what are we talking about? You can rent a car for a lot less
than $1,000; and most people, frankly, prefer not to go through a
couple of changes, to a feeder airline to a hub to another destination,
if you're able to avoid it. An hour 45 minutes, hour and a half air
travel is certainly perfectly reasonable, especially when you consider
in addition that if it really is essential, the Secretary of
Transportation has the ability to waive this legislation. So people are
just unilaterally assuming that somehow some terrible thing will happen
when the authority already exists in the executive branch to prevent
that from happening.
So to further hold the whole system hostage over a small effort to
reform what really has been, I think, over a period of years an
accumulation of earmarks--people had the ability to provide for a
subsidy for an airport in their district in this area or that area
because they were in leadership on the committee or in the Congress,
and we've seen this pile up and pile up, and it's really about time it
gets addressed.
And asking people to find a way to get to an airport, if it's less
than 90 miles that they have to find alternative transportation, rather
than having the Federal Government subsidize it in a few airports
around the country seems to me to be something that is badly in need of
doing. It saves money for the taxpayer. Not a whole lot, but I think
estimates are between $8 million and $9 million a year. I guess around
here that doesn't amount to a whole lot, but in most communities and
families and other areas, that's a lot of money.
Of course, we have to remember the Federal Government isn't the only
government concerned. If people really do want a subsidized service
because of some local need, the community or the State or the county
involved is certainly perfectly free to do that.
So why we should be picking a couple dozen communities around the
entire United States and subsidizing to the extent of over $1,000 per
passenger to provide this sort of almost air limousine service for a
few individuals in these communities is beyond me.
Yet if this is nonnegotiable and we can't concede to the language
already in the Senate bill and we're going to have to shut down the
whole system, except for essential air service, because of trying to do
this modest reform after 23 extensions or 24 extensions, we've really
come to a pretty kind of arbitrary and unreasonable place here in this
House.
So I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. And I want to
associate myself with his very detailed and well-stated opening
statement on this legislation.
I think the premise should be that all of us agree on the importance
of the FAA. I have served as the chairwoman of the Transportation
Security Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee and now serve
as its ranking member. Through that timeframe, I have seen the
overlapping need to view particularly FAA's work and particularly air
traffic controller work as part of both the safety and security of this
Nation.
I remind my colleagues of the activist role that air traffic
controllers in particular took during 9/11. During the massiveness of
confusion and the loss of the destination or the placing of three of
our major airlines and planes that were flying in, airplanes, the air
traffic controller was really a team that was on the first response, if
you will. So their work is enormously important.
And my colleague mentioned some numbers that I think are extremely
important: $1.3 trillion is what we find as the revenue in the airline
industry, 11\1/2\ million jobs, a 75 percent increase in employees
within 20 years and 1 billion in the next decade. I want to say that
this means that we have a great obligation to protect the American
traveling public.
I also want to associate myself with the idea of not protecting our
small airports and disadvantaging those airports by this legislation.
And again I assume Chairman Rockefeller's comments play to that as
well.
But I had offered an amendment that was sent to the Senate to
establish a mandate that at the top 20 United States airports there
should be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during
periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will
ensure that air traffic control towers at high-volume airports in this
country will be appropriately staffed at all times.
Mr. Speaker, we engaged with the conference committee very
diligently. We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic
controllers falling asleep or being locked out of the control tower or,
for whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at
critical times.
Now, I know that air traffic controllers reflect the diversity of
America and the various ills and concerns. We also know they have long
concentrated hours and it's a difficult job. Just recently there was a
question of whether or not an air traffic controller was inebriated on
the job, whether he drank on the job or he came to the job, he or she,
with this condition. But if that was the case and there was one air
traffic controller there, there's zero. If that was the case and there
were two, then there was one.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest
and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in
control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer and much
more secure.
The American passenger has value. Those dear souls who lost their
lives on 9/11 who were not exposed to this concept of terrorism had
value. The American passenger is entitled to safety and security. Think
about the people on planes flying across our country. They are our
grandmothers, husbands, wives, babies, family members, businesspersons,
associates, colleagues. They're American passengers and their lives
have value. To ensure their safety and security, I believe we need more
than what is presently moving in this bill that has not come to the
floor, and I believe we should move on with the conferees to be
appointed because, as I said, I sent my language to the initial
negotiation. We need to move on so there's an opportunity for us to
work this idea.
But this is more than a study. We don't need another study. We have
already seen the mishaps. On 9/11 we discovered the value and
importance of these particular workers, and we now have discovered the
problem.
I ask my colleagues to raise the question and to question this rule
and this bill, or this extension, because we are putting our American
passengers in jeopardy.
[[Page H5254]]
Mr. Speaker, as we consider yet another extension for FAA programs, I
rise today to discuss a key issue that I urge the conferees on the FAA
Reauthorization bill to consider.
Prior to H.R. 658 being sent to the Senate, I offered an amendment to
establish a mandate that at the top 20 U.S. airports, there shall be no
fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of
airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that
air traffic control towers at high volume airports in this country will
be appropriately staffed at all times. This is a matter of national
security.
We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers
falling asleep, or being locked out of the control tower, or for
whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at critical
times.
I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest
and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in
control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer.
The American Passenger has value. The American Passenger is entitled
to Safety and Security.
Think about the people on planes flying across our country. They are
our grandmothers, husbands, wives and babies. They are American
Passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety and
security we must insist that Air Traffic Controllers are vigilant. To
ensure their vigilance we must set reasonable minimum standards.
After 9-11, we discovered the vital importance of protecting our
domestic airspace. Air Traffic Controllers are part of the front line
of defense to protect the ensure the safety of our air space. If they
lose contact with a plane, they can alert authorities. If an Air
Traffic Controller at a major domestic and international airport is
asleep at the wheel who will make that call?
It is unfair to put the lives of American passengers at high volume
airports at ANY time in the hands of one individual, who may at some
point be incapacitated. Even pilots have co-pilots. What if the
Controller fell ill? What then? What would you tell those passengers on
the plane? Hope for the best? We need to provide the support that Air
Traffic Controllers need in addition to the responsibility.
This language I support creates a mandate, that at all times there
must be a minimum of three air traffic controllers in the tower during
hours of airfield operation. I commend Secretary LaHood for ordering a
second air traffic controller to be on duty overnight at National
Airport. However, the Secretary's action simply evidences that there is
no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers. According to
the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, most airports operate
24 hours a day with two controllers in the tower for the midnight-to-6
a.m. shift. The operative word is ``most'', we must act to create a
uniform nationwide standard, verifiable and enforceable by the FAA.
Again, safety and security are mutually needed to protect the public.
This mandate of 2 air traffic controllers on duty at the top 20
airports is vital to America's National Security.
I urge the conferees to adopt this important provision.
Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes
to my very good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon to consider this very
necessary legislation, too many Americans are looking at yet another
Friday without a paycheck. Too many Americans are leery when they hear
the phone ring for fear it's another dunning phone call from a creditor
they can't pay. Too many Americans are stuck for yet another week in a
part-time job that doesn't come anywhere close to paying their
families' bills.
The country has a jobs crisis. We have the same number of private
sector jobs in America today that we had in 2001, and we have 14
percent more people looking for work. We have a jobs crisis.
This is the 196th day of the majority that now runs the House of
Representatives, and on not one of those days has the majority taken
advantage of the opportunity to come to the floor, work together on
legislation that would address this jobs crisis here in our country.
{time} 1250
I believe that resolving this crisis requires us to work together in
three areas:
First, we have to get our fiscal house in order as a government. We
can no longer borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and we
certainly cannot let this country fail to meet its obligation to pay
its bills--a deadline that is on August 2. Failure to do that would
mean more than simply failing our country's national obligations. It
would mean higher mortgage rates; it would mean higher car loan rates,
higher small business rates; and if we miss the deadline, it would mean
not enough money to pay Social Security checks or our troops or our
creditors. We cannot let that happen.
Just across this Capitol, there are signs of hope, where Members of
the other body from both political parties have begun to have a serious
proposal put on the table that would significantly address our budget
problem by reducing entitlement spending, which we must do; by reducing
spending on regular government programs, which we must do; by reducing
spending on defense in areas that would not weaken our country, which
we must do; and yes, by requiring the wealthiest and most successful of
Americans to pay a bit more towards solving this problem. That is a
fair and balanced way to approach this problem. I am heartened by the
fact that, across the Capitol, both Republicans and Democrats are
beginning to make that effort. We should make the same effort here,
something we could agree to.
Second, we've got to stimulate the demand for businesses in this
country. I think the main reason so many employers are not hiring is
they legitimately fear there won't be enough customers to buy their
appliances or their antibiotics or their software, that there isn't
enough demand in our economy.
One of the reasons we don't have that demand is we send $1 billion a
day to Middle Eastern countries which sell us oil. Why don't we keep
that $1 billion here in the United States of America and put it to work
by putting Americans to work, whether it's in building windmill farms
off the coast or solar farms throughout our rural areas or in exploring
regular, conventional sources of energy in a safe and environmentally
conscious way. Let's do that.
Why aren't we investing to give ourselves a continued lead in the
biotechnology industry? As scientists are figuring out ways to grow new
tissue that heals hearts and livers and kidneys, why aren't we working
to retain our leadership position in the world in order to create jobs
here in our country?
So these are ways that we could and should work together.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. ANDREWS. Why aren't we doing far more than we're doing this
afternoon on this airport bill?
Airport investment puts Americans to work, and good air travel makes
growth possible, but look at what we're doing: a temporary, scanty
extension of our investment in our air traffic system because we can't
get our fiscal house in order to agree to the kind of extension that we
need.
We have 196 days of missed opportunity. Let's not make tomorrow the
197th day of missed opportunity. Let's come together; work together as
Republicans and Democrats, and create an environment where
entrepreneurs can begin to create the jobs that we so desperately need
here in our country. Yes, we have a deficit in America--it is a very
serious deficit--but the most serious deficit we have is a jobs
deficit, and until we can find a way to put 15 million unemployed
Americans back to work, our deficits will continue.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the people who might be
watching this that we're talking about House Resolution 357, which is a
rule that would allow us to reauthorize an extension of the Airport and
Airway Extension Act, which is called H.R. 2553. That's our discussion.
That's what we're talking about.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would ask my good friend from Florida
whether he has any other requests for time. I am prepared to close.
Mr. WEBSTER. No. I am ready to close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, having now fully
[[Page H5255]]
read Senator Rockefeller's letter, I do ask that it be made part of the
Record. I will read only four sentences from it. He says to Chairman
Mica:
``I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and send over a
clean FAA extension and appoint conferees for the FAA reauthorization
bill, as the Senate did on April 7, 2011, to move this important
legislation forward. Further efforts to add policy components to FAA
extensions that have not been negotiated with the Senate will likely
shut the FAA down.''
As Transportation Secretary LaHood and FAA Administrator Babbitt have
said, the United States faces a pivotal time in aviation history. In
order to ensure the safety of the flying public and bring our air
transportation system into the 21st century, the FAA needs a long-term
reauthorization bill. While H.R. 2553 buys us a little more time, we
cannot afford to continue ignoring the underlying problem.
Mr. Speaker, I try very much not to be as parochial as I can be in
many instances, but in West Palm Beach, we are building a new airport
tower, and we need the NextGen facilities. At the Fort Lauderdale
Airport--that is my hometown airport--we are expanding the runway. It
becomes increasingly difficult to complete the projects when money for
doing so comes in increments rather than in a block that will allow
that they go forward in a meaningful way.
Toward that end, the failure to enact a multiyear FAA reauthorization
is just going to result in delays to much needed infrastructure
improvements, including, as I have mentioned, the ground-based and
NextGen technologies; and it will ultimately cost our Nation more in
the long run with regard to passenger safety, jobs and the environment.
Enough is enough. We need a clean extension now in order to pass a
long-term authorization as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bill.
United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation,
Washington DC, July 19, 2011.
Hon. John Mica,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
John, As you are well aware, Congress has passed 20 routine
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) extensions since 2007.
I was genuinely hopeful that we would have had a
comprehensive bill after four months of negotiations, but
appreciated that a handful of difficult issues remained to be
resolved before agreement on a final bill could be reached. I
was under the impression that we were still operating on a
shared desire to complete this important legislation.
It is for this reason that I am deeply puzzled by your
decision to introduce an FAA extension with language that
adversely affects the Essential Air Service (EAS) program.
This surprise maneuver is a complete reversal from the
discussions we have been having for several months, and
strongly suggests you have not been negotiating in good
faith.
As troubling and problematic as the extension you
introduced is, I am even more taken aback by the blistering
press release you issued in conjunction with it. Its
hostility was unexpected. The tone and tenor of the release
was so different than any of our previous interactions, I
almost did not believe you wrote it.
As your press release inferred, you inserted the EAS
language into the FAA extension in retaliation for the
Senate's refusal to accept your language on the National
Mediation Board (NMB). At no point during our discussions,
have we ever linked reforms to the EAS program to language on
NMB. I made it clear from the beginning of our negotiations
that the NMB language included in your bill--or any other
language adversely impacting workers rights--could not pass
the Senate. As you know, the Senate voted on this issue last
year and our Leadership considers this matter settled. Your
attempt to punish the Senate by hurting small community air
service has backfired--this language only guarantees that the
Senate will reject the FAA extension.
As I told you on numerous occasions, EAS is critical to
West Virginia. Specifically, I discussed how Morgantown and
Clarksburg depend on the EAS program. Air service has been a
critical factor in the economies of these communities, and
drives economic growth across my state. Our every
conversation had me convinced that you appreciated the
reasons I am so dedicated to supporting this program. I
believed you when you indicated you wanted to work with me on
reaching language acceptable to both chambers. The language
in the FAA extension you introduced with Congressmen Camp and
Petri makes it harder to find a path forward on this issue.
Over the last twenty-four hours, it is my understanding
that you have asserted to others that you had no role in
developing this extension, claiming that it was a leadership
decision. If this is true, I am unclear as to why you
sponsored it, and issued such a searing press release along
with it. If you truly have no authority to make final
decisions on the FAA bill, I urge the House to formally
appoint conferees and allow me to negotiate directly with
your colleagues who can make decisions.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and send
over a clean FAA extension and appoint conferees for the FAA
reauthorization bill, as the Senate did on April 7, 2011, to
move this important legislation forward. Further efforts to
add policy components to FAA extensions that have not been
negotiated with the Senate will likely shut the FAA down. You
need to think about this very, very carefully. Any
consequences resulting from such an action will fall squarely
on your shoulders. Right now you are in control of the
agency's immediate future.
Sincerely,
John D. Rockefeller IV.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. In closing, I would like to address one thing about the
change that's in this particular reauthorization, that of essential air
service, which has basically become the government-funded corporate jet
program. We've tried to reduce that. If you're a businessman and you
live in a rural community, instead of being willing to drive an hour
and a half to get on a plane at a medium- or small-sized hub, you're
willing to have the government fund your airplane for you. It's
basically a corporate member, somebody who has a business there. He
gets on a jet, and to the tune of up to $3,720, we subsidize that. The
taxpayers of this country subsidize that, so it's like a subsidized
corporate jet.
It's a sad thing. We want to reduce that. We'd like to do away with
it, and a lot of us would like to do away with it altogether; but it
would reduce that down to $1,000 instead of having to drive, maybe, an
hour and a half to an airport. It's a sad thing.
However, another sad thing is that we're here. I am sad about the
fact that we're standing here on the floor once again to vote for
another extension. I wish it had worked out. I wish we could get
together, and I hope that happens in the next few weeks if we approve
this. This extension is necessary to ensure continued safety for all
who fly, be it for business or pleasure or for any other reason, in the
American skies.
I ask my colleagues to join me today and vote in favor of this rule
and of passage of the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 183, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 608]
YEAS--239
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
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)
Frelinghuysen
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
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
[[Page H5256]]
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
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
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 (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
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)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
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
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
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
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Blumenauer
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Ellison
Giffords
Hinchey
McDermott
Runyan
Young (AK)
{time} 1330
Messrs. CONYERS, CLYBURN and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. LEWIS of California, CAMP, McKINLEY, and CRENSHAW changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, due to official House business, I was
unable to vote on the following measure:
Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 2553--
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV (H. Res. 357).
Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``nay.''
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 178, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 609]
AYES--242
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
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)
Frelinghuysen
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
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
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
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--178
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
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
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
[[Page H5257]]
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Bachmann
Blumenauer
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Ellison
Giffords
Gutierrez
Hinchey
McDermott
Runyan
Scott (VA)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.
{time} 1337
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.
Stated against:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, due to official House business, I was
unable to vote on the following measure:
H. Res. 357--Closed Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2553--
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV.
Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________