[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21430-21443]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3150, SECURE TRANSPORTATION FOR 
                          AMERICA ACT OF 2001

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 274

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the

[[Page 21431]]

     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3150) 
     to improve aviation security, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill 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. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274 is a structured rule that provides 
for the consideration of H.R. 3150, the Secure Transportation for 
America Act. This is a fair rule, allowing ample time for free-flowing 
discussion on both the base text and the Democratic substitute. The 
rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order only 
those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying 
the resolution. These amendments may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report. They 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. Further, the rule waives all points of 
order against such amendments. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to announce that at the 
conclusion of the debate on this resolution, it is my intention to 
offer an amendment to the rule that simply replaces the manager's 
amendment currently made in order under the rule with a new manager's 
amendment. This manager's amendment eliminates a provision dealing with 
preferred compensation for airline employees and adds airport parking 
lots to a provision that requires airports receiving financial aid to 
work with airport restaurants, shops and other concessionaires on rent 
adjustments to account for their loss of revenue. The new manager's 
amendment also adds language that establishes a preference for the 
hiring of laid-off airline workers as screeners and a provision that 
states that, where possible, airline security companies should be 
American companies.
  Mr. Speaker, as our Nation searches for answers in the wake of the 
September 11 tragedy, we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory. Our 
personal freedoms and liberties are so rooted in the fabric of American 
society that we almost take them for granted. But now that those 
freedoms have been attacked in the most despicable and cowardly manner, 
we are all keenly aware of just how precious they are. As we strive to 
maintain a sense of normalcy and familiarity, we also struggle to 
reconcile our fears and apprehensions in a new and uncertain global 
atmosphere. Enhancing our Nation's air travel by making it as safe and 
secure as possible is critical in easing those fears among our 
citizens.
  The comprehensive legislation before us today focuses on our Nation's 
aviation security system. This security plan establishes a new 
transportation security administration within the Department of 
Transportation that will be responsible for the security of all forms 
of transportation, not just air travel. This legislation not only 
expands law enforcement on aircraft by placing Federal marshals on 
commercial airlines, but it also positions law enforcement personnel at 
every airport screening location, because safety must include defenses 
on both the ground and in the air.
  Additional ground safety measures incorporate strict new standards 
for screening, including certification and uniformed personnel. Federal 
supervision will oversee the screening process, background checks and 
testing. Baggage screeners will have to undergo more extensive 
training, adhere to tougher performance requirements, be U.S. citizens, 
and be deputized with law enforcement powers.
  As the holiday season fast approaches, it is more important than ever 
that Americans are free to spend time with their families and their 
loved ones and it is incumbent upon us to do everything in our power to 
make sure that their travel, by any means, but especially by air, is as 
safe and as secure as possible. A stronger infrastructure means a 
stronger economy, and a stronger economy means a stronger America. By 
passing this rule and its underlying legislation, we can move quickly 
move forward with the important business of making our airports and 
airplanes safe and secure for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, for his hard work and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, for 
his hard work.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New 
York for yielding me the time.
  After September 11, it is patently clear that we need to make travel 
on our airlines as safe as possible. Leaving aside for the time being 
the fact that we have not done anything for the safety of passengers on 
our buses, trains or ships, what we are trying to do for the flying 
public is as important as anything we can do to help this economy.
  First, Mr. Speaker, let me speak to the rule itself.
  Mr. Speaker, there were 20 Members of the House that asked that the 
Committee on Rules allow their amendments to be made in order. These 
were Members of both parties who have some thoughtful and substantive 
suggestions as to how to make this legislation stronger. Of those 20 
Members, exactly two of them will have their amendments heard and 
debated by the House. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is permitted to 
offer an amendment, and, of course, the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will be allowed to offer his amendment. 
Other than the two most senior members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, not one other Member of the House of 
Representatives is permitted to offer an amendment.
  Candidly, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. While I very much 
appreciate the fact that this rule makes in order the gentleman from 
Minnesota's substitute, the Committee on Rules spent hours this week 
listening to Members testify on behalf of their amendments. 
Unfortunately, the House at large will not have this same opportunity.

[[Page 21432]]

  What I heard at the Committee on Rules this week was interesting, 
provocative, insightful and worthy of consideration by this House. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) made excellent points at the 
Committee on Rules which we will not consider today because of this 
closed rule. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) are all some of the other Members who will 
not have their amendments heard under this closed rule.
  Why is the majority limiting debate on such an important issue? I 
have yet to hear one Member satisfactorily explain that to me. Worse, 
Mr. Speaker, the lengthy amendment from the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure chairman constantly being amended, even here in the 
last 30 minutes, will only be debated for 20 minutes. This is a 16-page 
amendment which makes significant changes to the underlying bill. So 
each side will have 10 minutes to debate this. I find that incredible.
  Moving beyond this restrictive rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
touch briefly on the serious deficiencies of the underlying bill. 
During the minimal time allowed to debate this bill, we will hear much 
about who and what is screening the people and baggage on our airlines. 
The seminal question in my view is this: Will we have Federal law 
enforcement personnel screen passengers and luggage before entering 
airplanes or will this be left to private sector contract employees?
  Before answering that question, let me ask my colleagues related 
questions about public safety and security, their own safety and 
security and their constituents'. My colleagues, do we not feel safer 
every morning that we enter the Capitol because we are protected by the 
United States Capitol Police? Do we not feel safer that our borders are 
protected by the United States Border Patrol and United States Customs 
Service? Do we not feel safer that our brave men and women in uniform 
and members of the United States Armed Services presently pursuing our 
interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere are members of the Armed Forces?
  So what is my point? The point is we do not contract out our own 
security in the Capitol building, we do not contract out our security 
at our borders, and we certainly do not contract out for our military. 
However, the leadership of this House is comfortable contracting out 
the security of the flying public. Again I say, incredible.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember several weeks ago after my leader the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) came out of a White House 
meeting with the President and said, ``This is a unity government 
now.'' It seems that all 100 United States Senators understood what 
that meant. That means we should stop dickering around and pass a 
serious bill. The bill must include federalized passenger screeners at 
our airports. And in case it was not just made clear, the other Chamber 
passed their bill with federalized screeners by a recorded vote of 100-
to-nothing. Certainly if the United States Senate can pass such a bill 
with unanimity, the House should do no less.
  Another issue that really incenses me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that 
our checked baggage is not screened as it should be. According to an 
article that appeared in yesterday's Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, only 
5 to 10 percent of checked bags are examined for explosives. The 
underlying bill would require examination of all checked bags by 
December 2003. Are we clear on this? So in 2 years and 2 months, our 
bags will be adequately screened.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, irresponsible and inexcusable. 
There is simply no reason why Congress cannot mandate the Department of 
Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 
regulations immediately to require screening of checked baggage. I need 
not remind my colleagues that as the holiday season approaches, it is 
more critical than ever that our flying public not only feels safe but 
that they are safe.

                              {time}  1330

  That is the critical difference between the House bill and the 
unanimously passed Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if I had more time, I would discuss the fact that while 
this House has already bailed out the airline industry, provided 
enormous tax breaks to the largest corporations in America, and is now 
set to attempt to make our skies safer, we still have not lifted a 
single finger to help displaced workers.
  I introduced a bill more than 5 weeks ago to help those hardworking 
Americans who have lost their jobs because of the tragedy on September 
11. My bill, cosponsored by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Hart) and 140 other bipartisan cosponsors, needs to be considered 
forthwith.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule; and that amendment would provide that 
immediately after the House passes the airline safety bill it will take 
up H.R. 2955, the Displaced Workers Assistance Act introduced by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and myself and others. My 
amendment provides that the bill will be considered under an open 
amendment process so that all Members will be able to fully express 
their views and offer amendments that they think are important to this 
critical bill.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 7 weeks have passed since the tragic events of 
September 11. Since that time, thousands and thousands of workers in 
the airline and related industries have lost their jobs. These people 
need relief immediately. When we passed the airline bailout the week 
after the terrorist attacks, promises were made at that time by the 
Republican leadership that a worker-relief package would soon follow. I 
do not have to say again that it has not happened yet, and I do not see 
any indication that it is on the schedule in the immediate future. It 
is time for the House to do its work and pass legislation to help these 
people.
  Let me make clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will 
not stop consideration of the airline safety bill. A ``no'' vote will 
allow the House to get on with the much-delayed airline industry 
worker-aid bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will 
prevent the House from taking up the airline worker relief bill.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, over the past 2 months, this 
Congress has been working with unusual dispatch with an unusual degree 
of bipartisanship. The consideration of this bill could have been 
another example of this. I am disappointed, as are many Members, that 
the leadership chose instead to have a closed, restrictive rule this 
afternoon and not allow Members to offer legitimate substantive and 
meaningful amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), commented on the length of debate, it is apparent that we 
will also add 60 minutes for the rule for additional debate on this 
subject as we continue through the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would only advise my 
distinguished colleague and friend that last night we asked for more 
time on the manager's amendment so we could have more time on this 
matter.

[[Page 21433]]


  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I remind the gentleman 
that the all-powerful Committee on Rules had the tremendous opportunity 
to have an hour and a half on the witness stand of the inquiries that 
were made by both Democrat and Republican Members as to the 
legislation, the manager's amendment opinions expressed by the members 
of the Committee on Rules on various aspects of that legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that this is an abundantly 
fair rule. It does give the minority two shots at the proposal. It does 
give them the opportunity to bring up in toto the Senate-passed 
language, as they requested.
  The legislation that we have proposed on the House side, the majority 
side, in comments that were made by the previous speaker on the other 
side that it is important that we protect trains and planes and other 
modes of transportation, in fact the legislation that we are presenting 
here today is the most comprehensive security package, not only giving 
responsibility, which is so important, but, unlike the Senate proposal, 
it also gives the authority to deal with some of the problems.
  In fact, today's newspaper points out one of the problems we have had 
in the past with security or even dealing with defects of aviation, and 
this is in today's Washington Post. This talks about the Value Jet 
crash which took place in 1996. It says: ``In fact, Federal regulations 
were later strengthened to crack down on passenger flights carrying 
hazardous waste.''
  Why am I pointing this out? Because the Senate bill, the bill 
proposed by the other side, does nothing to deal with giving authority 
to deal with regulations relating to security. That is the major flaw 
in this proposed piece of legislation.
  The other side has said some 20 Members presented before the 
Committee on Rules. I participated in the Committee on Rules 
procedures. I will say many of the proposals from the other side have 
been incorporated into the manager's amendment. We have tried to 
accommodate those requests, including probably one of the strongest 
provisions for checked baggage, which was also pointed out by the other 
side that baggage is not checked.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) on the other side, who has 
done such a good job in promoting this strong provision, certainly 
would prefer our legislative proposal, which is the strongest ever 
proposed anywhere in Congress and contained in our manager's amendment, 
and we modeled it partly after his recommendation.
  So, no, good ideas have not been left out. This process has not been 
a partisan issue. I have worked with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman on the other side, the ranking member, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). We have worked together in a 
bipartisan fashion; and they know in their heart of hearts that the 
bill proposed by the majority, they agree with 100 percent, with the 
exception of one part, and that is, shall all of the employees who are 
baggage screeners be Federal employees.
  What is sad about the proposal on the other side is, not only will 
this create a disjointed and dysfunctional security mechanism for 
airports, a lack of authority to deal specifically with other modes of 
transportation, which is so important in this time of crisis, but I 
have a letter from the Department of Justice, and the legislation from 
the other side actually will inhibit their ability to function.
  The Department of Justice, let me read from their letter to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our chairman: ``Unlike the 
Department of Justice, DOT has both the broad transportation-related 
statutory mandate and nearly 35 years of significant operational 
experience with transportation regulation, infrastructure, security and 
enforcement. Further, DOT's two components of law enforcement 
authority, the United States Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation 
Administration, possess a unique infrastructure of law enforcement 
personnel and expertise with broad domestic enforcement authority upon 
which the Congress can build and enhance DOT's law enforcement 
authority and responsibility.''
  Listen to this. They say: ``In light of DOT's strong capabilities and 
DOJ's many responsibilities in fighting the war on terrorism, we feel 
that our resources would be better spent in carrying out our current 
mission than developing a new transportation infrastructure and 
expertise.''
  So here we have the proposal from the other side, which actually will 
impede the Department of Justice mission which they have, and it will 
not do it in a small way, it will do it in an incredible way.
  The Congressional Budget Office submitted to me today the proposal 
that it is not 28,000 additional employees; it is some 31,000 
additional Federal employees. So you can go home and tell your 
constituents what we did is created the biggest bureaucracy in the 
history of a generation, the biggest bureaucracy, 31,000 Federal 
employees, as a cure-all, and the Department of Justice has said in 
fact that you are interfering with our mission and they have no 
expertise to deal with this. We have created a two-tier system, which 
is the most disjointed approach to security that we could possibly have 
to guarantee the safety of the flying public.
  So I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and to consider very 
carefully what legislation is before them. When all else fails, my 
colleagues, read the bill. This is one of the worst pieces of 
legislation I have seen in 20 years in working on Capitol Hill. It was 
sent here in a hurry, almost immediately, so we could correct it. Now 
we need to do that. We cannot pass this failed piece of legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just remind my distinguished colleague from Florida 
that the Senate bill has been at the desk for an entire week, and I 
would also remind the gentleman that the vote in the United States 
Senate was 100 to nothing, and that included Trent Lott and John McCain 
and all of the other Republican Senators who still stand by their bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that it 
is inappropriate to state how specific Senators voted on a particular 
measure.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear a lot of rhetoric today; but the issue 
before this House is a very simple one: Do you support the current 
system in which low-bid private security companies are responsible for 
airline safety? If so, then vote for the Republican leadership's bill. 
Or do you feel that the current system has failed the American people 
and should be replaced with Federal law enforcement professionals 
protecting our airports, just as they protect the Capitol, the White 
House, and America's borders? If so, then vote for the bipartisan 
substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is an easy choice. Replacing the current 
failed system is simple. The White House said today that the President 
is eager to sign an aviation security bill into law. Three weeks ago, 
the Senate unanimously passed on a vote of 100 to zero a strong 
bipartisan aviation security bill that we will offer as a substitute 
today.
  This House can send that bipartisan bill to the President's desk 
tonight. Then we can immediately start putting more sky marshals on 
planes, strengthen more cockpit doors, and start protecting our 
airports with Federal law enforcement professionals.
  On the other hand, the Republican leaders today are offering the 
flying public nothing more than a fig leaf that will protect the same 
old failed private airport security system. Even worse, Mr. Speaker, 
Republican leaders are offering a manager's amendment

[[Page 21434]]

that would not just keep private security companies in charge of 
airport security, it would virtually exonerate them from the September 
11 failures. The Republican manager's amendment would provide the 
private security companies with liability protection, preventing the 
victims of September 11 from holding them accountable for allowing 
terrorists to get on planes with box cutters. This is nothing less than 
shameful, Mr. Speaker; and I am stunned that Republican leaders are 
trying to slip it through the House.
  Mr. Speaker, while the rest of this country pulls together to win the 
war on terrorism, the Republican leadership is playing politics as 
usual. I urge my colleagues to reject partisanship and special interest 
politics and to pass the bipartisan substitute so the President can 
immediately sign this aviation security bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship comes from bringing two points of view 
together. That is going to happen if this rule is passed when the 
debate will go on the merit of the legislation of the underlying bill. 
It will happen when a vote occurs on the manager's amendment, whether 
it occurs or not with passage; and it will happen with the complete 
Democratic substitute written by Democrats in a partisan fashion to be 
brought before the House in a bipartisan vote, up or down.
  So we are going to have a lot of bipartisanship or nonpartisanship 
today, once this rule is passed. It is going to be the opportunity for 
those who support the President's plan to have that vote. For those who 
want to look at liability provisions and other aspects contained in the 
manager's amendment, that will be an opportunity for a vote as well. 
Finally, a Democratic substitute written by the Democratic minority of 
this House will have an up or down vote as well.
  So we are going to have a lot of bipartisanship, led by the 
leadership in this House, let alone rank and file Members, as we pass 
this rule and move toward consideration of those prospects within the 
bill that will be before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, about a week after September 11, I stood at 
ground zero with my colleague from New Jersey looking at that six-story 
pile of rubble and smoke rising from it that was a mass grave of 5,000 
of our American citizens, and I could see superimposed over that the 
handwriting from a victim's relief center of a little girl, written on 
the wall underneath the picture of her daddy, and it said, ``Daddy, I 
miss you. I will love you always.''

                              {time}  1345

  We need to get past partisanship.
  There will be those on the floor today who will rant and rail against 
putting airport safety in the hands of government employees, as if that 
were an evil thing. Well, here is the real story. All those brave 
firefighters and policemen in New York City who lost their lives were 
government employees. All those courageous Capitol Hill policemen who 
lost their lives defending our offices 2 years ago were government 
employees. All those men and women in the armed services who are 
fighting in Afghanistan right at this moment are government employees. 
And the FBI agents who put their lives on the line are government 
employees. Those postal workers who lost their lives are government 
employees.
  Mr. Speaker, the Oberstar-Ganske substitute is the bipartisan bill. 
It passed the Senate 100 to zero. Such well-known conservatives as 
Trent Lott, Don Nickles, Chuck Grassley, all voted for that bill. They 
all voted for that bill.
  The Senate bill puts the safety of our citizens ahead of special 
interests. The companies who are bankrolling the effort to kill the 
Senate bill are foreign-owned corporations.
  So that is the question: Are we going to take common sense, practical 
steps to improve the safety, or are we going to entrust our lives to 
foreign corporations who pay minimum wage and are already threatening 
to sue the Government? The Ganske-Oberstar amendment empowers Attorney 
General John Ashcroft to set the terms and conditions of hiring and 
firing of those screeners, and there could be no strikes. The House 
leadership bill will produce gridlock. The manager's amendment is even 
worse. The voters have elected us to solve problems, not just to talk 
about them. Let us put this bill where it belongs: on the President's 
desk. He has already said he would sign it, and the sooner the better.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see again a message like another one I 
saw at that Victims' Family Relief Center written by a mother. 
Underneath the picture of her husband, it said, ``Dan we will love you 
always,'' signed, ``Christan and your son, Justin.''
  It is time to pass the true bipartisan bill, get it to the 
President's desk, and get it signed into law before hundreds of 
thousands of our citizens are flying on Thanksgiving.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I really wish to remind the gentleman from New York that when he said 
that this Oberstar measure that we will undertake was written in a 
partisan fashion, that the Oberstar substitute is the Senate bill that 
was passed 100 to nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question, and 
I do so for a very simple reason that was eloquently brought to us on 
the floor by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Airline workers have been laid off across this country by the tens of 
thousands; and so far, we have done absolutely nothing. We were told 
when this Congress bailed out the airline industry to the tune of $15 
billion a few weeks ago that the workers would be next. On top of that, 
today they have something called uncapped compensation for some of 
these executives that would give them additional millions of dollars 
that was in the manager's amendment. I do not know if they are going to 
go forward with it and try to get it out of here today, but I tell my 
colleagues one thing, they had it in there originally. They are taking 
care of certain people and letting the others go.
  We decided that we were in this together as a country, workers, 
executives, Democrats, Republicans. Well, that has not been the case. 
After they did this bailout of the airline industry, the House passed 
this corporate welfare package under the guise of economic stimulus. 
Multinational corporations received tax breaks to the tune of billions 
of dollars, individual companies, $2 billion, $1.5 billion. Airline 
workers were given the pink slip.
  Mr. Speaker, 150,000 airline workers, baggage handlers, machinists, 
flight attendants, pilots, mechanics, are out of work. They need 
unemployment compensation. About 40 percent of people get it today if 
you are thrown out of work in this country. That is an outrage. They 
are not getting it. They need health care benefits to make sure that 
their families have health care, that they can feed their families, pay 
their mortgage with unemployment compensation benefits. All of that has 
run out or will run out without any help from this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to lend these workers a hand. How much time 
needs to go by? How many more bailouts and tax breaks will we need to 
consider before we help these 150,000 airline workers whose livelihoods 
have been most affected, and all of the other tens of thousands, if not 
hundreds of thousands who have been laid off as a result of their 
layoffs?
  Mr. Speaker, we need to pass an airline security bill identical to 
the Senate and send it to the President tonight. The American people 
have waited too long for airline security, and then come back and do 
the Hastings-Gephardt-Bonior bill that we need to deal with on 
unemployment compensation and health care.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 21435]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), one of the newer 
Members of the House of Representatives, who replaced the ranking 
member, our dear departed friend Joe Moakley.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his solid work on the 
substitute bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the privilege of my new office allows me the great honor 
of representing many of the neighborhoods and towns that surround Logan 
Airport in Boston. It just so happens that today I have the sad duty of 
meeting with many of the families from my district who lost loved ones 
aboard the flights which departed Logan Airport on September 11.
  Mr. Speaker, today is not the day to exempt security screening 
companies who failed to protect the public on September 11. I am 
heartsick that these families are families that we were charged and 
sworn to protect. They should not be overlooked by foreign security 
companies. We can fulfill our public duty by professionalizing and 
federalizing airport security personnel and by supporting the 
substitute bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a fair rule that 
will allow the people's representatives to consider federalizing the 
screeners in our Nation's airports. We cannot shortchange the public by 
continuing to contract out low-wage jobs and less-trained personnel. We 
need to federalize our airport security. We do not contract out our 
security for people who work for the INS or the military. Why then 
would we contract out for airline security?
  We have learned the hard way that an airplane can hit anywhere. 
Federalization means less employee turnover, more experience and 
accountability. According to GAO, in 1999, turnover averaged 126 
percent among screeners at 19 airports. No wonder, since the average 
pay that they receive is anywhere between $6 and $6.75 an hour.
  The Republican bill would eliminate the salary cap that we have 
placed on executive pay. These people earn hundreds of thousands of 
dollars. Why in the world would we eliminate the cap instead of 
providing support for those who are on the frontline, those screeners?
  Since screening personnel check more than 2 million pieces of luggage 
and go through and see millions of people a day, we should upgrade 
their salaries and their skills.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), my good friend.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  When I fly to Washington from Lindberg Field in San Diego and I check 
in my bags, I see hardworking people trying to do their best for the 
American public. But they are paid the minimum wage. They get 2 days of 
training, and there is almost a 200 percent turnover per year at our 
airport in San Diego.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to professionalize, it is time to stabilize, 
it is time to federalize that first line of defense for the traveling 
public. We would not contract out the defense of our border to the 
private sector. We are not going to contract out our national security. 
Let us not contract out the airline public safety.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time stabilize, it is time to professionalize, it 
is time to federalize our airline security workforce. Let us pass the 
Oberstar-Ganske substitute.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good friend.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Florida for the work that he has done on this and how he is handling 
it, which is always, his work always bears the mark of excellence.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long thought that our Nation's airports are part 
of our Nation's security. That was debated in the Congress for many 
years. September 11 changed that attitude in the country. I do not 
think there is a citizen in our Nation today that would question that 
our national airports are and should be part of our national security. 
That is why I rise in support of the Oberstar-Lipinski-DeFazio bill.
  Now, the Senate passed it 100 to nothing. For those that say this is 
partisan, it does not have to be. The Senate showed the way. They very 
seldom do. We know that our firefighters are part of public service. We 
do not go to the ABC Corporation to hire them. We do not hire our 
police officers that way.
  Today, we need Federal standards, Federal training, baggage checks; 
and our Nation's airports must, indeed, be part of our national 
security. We need to pass the bill.

                          ____________________

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would also remind 
all Members that it is improper to characterize the action or inaction 
of the Senate.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Is it inappropriate to characterize that the 
Senate voted 100 to nothing on a specific measure?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond to the gentleman 
that it is appropriate to state the collective facts of a Senate vote. 
It is inappropriate to characterize an action or inaction of the 
Senate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. We could not even call it overwhelming. 
Okay.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), my good friend.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the rule for H.R. 3150, because this bill does not address some of the 
critical issues raised by millions across this country, port 
authorities, aviation authority and rail authorities and emergency 
preparedness personnel, some of them which are the first-line 
responders.

                              {time}  1400

  There were 20 amendments that were presented to the Committee on 
Rules, in an attempt to try to fix a flawed bill that does not address 
anything that has to do with constituents in my district. I have laid-
off workers, many of whom are single women, flight attendants. We have 
not talked about real anti-hijacking training for flight attendants.
  I offered a noncontroversial and relevant amendment to H.R. 3150. It 
would require the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with 
Federal departments and agencies, to conduct a threat assessment on all 
forms of public transportation, public facilities, and gathering 
places. No such provision is reflected in any of the language in this 
bill.
  I will say to all of my colleagues, vote no on this rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, when all else fails, why do we not consult the 
facts?
  We have heard Members stand up and say that we would not contract out 
security responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I will submit that 26 Federal 
agencies, including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, 
Department of State, Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, our nuclear plants, all contracted

[[Page 21436]]

out 26 Federal agencies. The list goes on.
  Mr. Speaker, this deals with facts. In fact, we do contract this out. 
We are not asking for any different level.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to please not come before the Congress and 
the American people and tell them that we are protecting those private 
screening companies that are now doing their job. We take this 
responsibility away from the airlines, we make it a Federal 
responsibility. It is federally managed, it is federally supervised. 
There are Federal background checks. There is Federal testing. Most 
importantly, there is Federal oversight.
  The Israelis, the Europeans, tried the federalize-all-public-
employees method, and what did they do? They eventually evolved into a 
public-private partnership where the government sets the high 
standards, and that is what we have proposed.
  Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the facts. The facts are, this piece of 
legislation proposed and hastily passed by the Senate creates a two-
tier disastrous system, part in the Department of Justice, part in the 
Department of Transportation. It creates two tiers of law enforcement 
and leaves law enforcement in the Department of Transportation. It is a 
disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to pass something in a hurry, yes, we can run 
up here and tell people we have created 31,000 Federal positions. Yet, 
they do not have any authority to deal with the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, what is even more amazing, Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to 
read again today's Washington Post. See what is being proposed in the 
Senate. They are already trying to correct the mess that they passed 
here.
  If we look at one of the provisions of this legislation, and again, I 
defy the Members, read the bill, they set up an information-sharing for 
the intelligence system, but they do not share it with the airlines. 
Who has the passengers list? The airlines. There is no provision in 
their bill for that.
  There is no provision to require all airlines who have passenger 
lists, for international flights coming into the United States to 
provide that. That is in our bill. So their bill is a weak, hastily-
prepared piece of legislation that would cause untold turmoil and not 
do the job.
  The American people want us to do it right, even if it takes a little 
longer. We passed legislation in 1996 on airline security and blew it. 
We passed legislation in 2000, and we still do not have rules in place. 
There were no rules in place for box cutters.
  The biggest flaw, and do not talk about Federal employment, the 
biggest flaw with the bill proposed by the Senate and the other side is 
that it has no ability to execute on an immediate basis putting in 
place rules and regulations. There were no rules September 11 by 
Federal employees or Federal agencies to prohibit box cutters. There 
were no rules to get standards in place for baggage screeners.
  For 6 years we have been waiting, and this bill will do nothing after 
this if they pass that bill. It is a shame. It is a sham. Read the 
bill.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, is it not characterizing the 
Senate's actions to call it a sham, a mess, hastily made, disastrous, 
and weak?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond that it is 
inappropriate to characterize the actions of the Senate. It may be 
possible to characterize particular pieces of legislation or bills in 
ways in which it is inappropriate to characterize the action.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will suspend, it is 
appropriate during debate for Members to characterize the content of 
legislation or address the content. It is inappropriate to characterize 
the actions of the other body.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. So continuing my parliamentary inquiry, 
``hastily'' is not an action? I just want equal admonitions, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will suspend, the Chair is 
simply trying to uphold the rules and precedents of the House.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I appreciate it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It becomes a delicate matter with some of 
the words that are being used.
  The Chair would recommend that if any Member has any question about 
language they intend to offer, if they would check with the 
Parliamentarian, it would certainly be appreciated.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding 
time to me.
  I rise in support of the Democrat substitute to H.R. 3150.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democratic substitute to 
H.R. 3150, the Secure Transportation for American Act. This substitute 
measure would federalize all airport security-screening personnel and 
restore the feeling of personal security the airline industry lost in 
the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. This is a serious 
safety issue, one that directly concerns the life and death of innocent 
Americans, and as such, the solution to this problem should not be 
politicized.
  It has become abundantly clear in recent weeks that the current 
system of security checks performed by private firms in our nation's 
airports do not work, and simply giving the Federal Government 
oversight over this flawed system will not satisfy the safety standards 
we, as Americans, should require in air travel. Since September 11th, 
the news media has presented countless accounts of security breaches at 
airports by both employees and customers. On a flight from New Orleans 
to Phoenix a passenger alerted the flight crew to a loaded weapon he 
had unknowingly brought onboard the airplane, a weapon which was not 
detected by airport security prior to his boarding the flight. We have 
also seen evidence of criminals and non-U.S citizens employed by these 
private firms, overseeing the passenger and luggage screening on both 
our domestic and international flights. We need to look no further than 
right here at Dulles International Airport where Argenbright Security 
Inc., a foreign corporation, recently agreed to settle Justice 
Department allegations that the company violated a court order by, 
among other things, continuing to hire screeners with criminal records. 
Argenbright got a second chance. Airline passengers will not. As the 
old adage goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
  Statistics have shown that the national turnover rule for airport 
screeners is around 120 percent annually. This should not come as a 
surprise to anyone, as a majority of the screeners receive little 
training and are often paid less than most the food services employees 
located within the same airport. With federal law enforcement personnel 
manning the security operations, we would develop a highly professional 
security operation, with the proper compensation and benefit programs 
to attract the right people. This solution would greatly improve the 
safety of not only airline passengers, but as the events of September 
11th have shown, all Americans.
  For the first time in our nation's aviation history, parents are 
struggling with the question of not only whether it is safe for them to 
fly, but specifically whether it is safe to bring their children along 
on a commercial airliner. As the father of two young sons, I can 
sympathize with this difficult dilemma. I want to be able to return to 
my district and assure all mothers and fathers that I am committed to 
doing what is necessary so they can safely take their children on 
family vacations or visits to their grandparents, without the lingering 
safety doubts we now face.
  Airplanes are the primary mode for long distance transportation in 
this country, and will be for the foreseeable future. It is our duty as 
federal legislators to restore the confidence of the American people in 
the safety of air travel. That is why I urge my colleagues to support 
the Democratic substitute and ensure the safety of the airline 
industry.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard the parliamentary inquiry from the gentleman 
from Florida. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) was discussing the 
contents of the bill. I believe under the rules of the House the 
gentleman has the freedom to express what he felt was in the 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute

[[Page 21437]]

to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me in the well 
talked about a sham. Let us talk about a sham. They are renaming this 
bill as the Airport Security Federalization Act. They are going to take 
the private security employees, the same ones who are failing us today, 
some of them are even convicted felons, some are illegal aliens, but 
they are going to put Federal uniforms on them. They are even going to 
deputize them. But guess what, they are not going to be Federal law 
enforcement.
  They are trying to fool the American public. It is too bad that the 
United States Congress does not have a rule of the House that requires 
truth in labeling. The private security firms are failing, and in 
Europe the large Securicor is a dismal failure at Heathrow. They just 
had a huge security lapse. They own Argenbright in the United States, 
who is under criminal indictment for the second time in 1 year for 
hiring and maintaining known felons on staff, falsifying documents, all 
under the supervision of probation, and somehow they tell us they are 
going to supervise these firms better.
  No, the people at the door of the House of Representatives are sworn, 
uniformed Federal law enforcement officers. If that is necessary for 
us, it is necessary for the traveling public.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We are at war with terrorists that 
annihilated 6,000 Americans. We have a responsibility to work together 
to solve this problem.
  For me it is not an issue of whether they are Federal employees or 
non-Federal employees. Under the bill being presented on this side of 
the aisle, they can be either. We can have Federal employees in some 
instances, and non-Federal employees in others.
  The argument that suggests we are going to hire the same people that 
failed in the past is simply not true. The new employees will have to 
meet requirements that some of the people who now do this work cannot 
meet.
  Mr. Speaker, I weep for what we have gone through in the last few 
weeks, but this is not about Federal employees. It is about airport 
security.
  What I particularly like about the Young-Mica bill is that for the 
first time, we are going to require that the baggage that goes in the 
belly of an aircraft be inspected by a date certain. By the year 2003, 
all baggage in the belly of a plane will be inspected for explosives 
and weapons. That is an issue of safety that is not covered in the bill 
that is being presented by the Senate.
  When I hear that all Senators voted for it, in the end they all voted 
for the bill they had. I have some sense that if our bill passes, there 
will be some on the other side who will support it. It may not have 
been their first choice, but they are not going to vote against it 
because in the end it is about airport security.
  I hope we are able to have a sensible debate that treats both sides 
fairly and does not make these wild claims.
  In terms of Federal employees, terrorists would not have gotten into 
this country unless somebody allowed them to get here. They happened to 
have been Federal employees. They just were not Federal employees who 
were doing their job well enough.
  We want professionals, whether they are Federal employees or not.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. Lipinski), 
a gentleman that has a great deal of knowledge about the subject we are 
discussing.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me.
  First of all, I would like to thank the Committee on Rules and the 
Speaker for giving us an opportunity to actually have an up-or-down 
vote on this particular issue we are all debating at the present time, 
the Federal screening of individuals.
  I also would like to compliment the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for the great 
deal of work they have put into this bill. They have done an 
outstanding job. It would have been nice if we could have come to an 
agreement, but unfortunately, we could not have done so.
  I also want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), and my very good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), for all the great work they have done on this bill.
  I would simply like to make mention at the present time, the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) has talked about the failure of 
the FAA and the Department of Transportation to put rules in place over 
the course of the last 5 to 10 years.
  I certainly agree with him on that. That is why I am happy to see 
that a portion of this legislation is going to be in the Justice 
Department so we will have other individuals working on this, and I am 
quite sure that those individuals and the new Deputy Secretary for 
Security in the Department of Transportation will be able to put 
everything in place as quickly as possible.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my brother and friend on the 
Committee on Rules for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment should be opposed and we should 
support the Democratic substitute, because the limits on legal 
liability here are a little bit amazing. Legislation designed to 
enhance airport security would end up harming victims and rewarding the 
very firms whose negligence has contributed to the September 11 
terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment does this by providing liability relief to 
any person liable for any damages arising out of the September 11 
hijacking. What does that mean? The baggage screening firms would be 
protected from liability if they hired incompetent employees or 
deliberately failed to check for weapons. Where is the justice in that?
  I urge Members to consider liability provisions that go far beyond 
the protections included in the airline bailout bill we passed.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), representing Houston and other areas of the world.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me and for his great work.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 
the Rules Committee should be thanked for allowing the Senate bill 
which federalizes airline security to be worked on.
  I also thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his 
work, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and all of the ranking 
members of that committee.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday this past week a high alert was issued to the 
United States of America. It is well known that we are in a crisis. On 
September 11, the airline security system of our Nation failed the 
thousands that died. Those who worked there really did not fail, it was 
the contract system that did not train them and did not pay them.
  That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I rise for a singular reason: to 
support the Oberstar substitute to the underlying aviation security 
bill. The substitute bill is the exact same bill that the bipartisan 
Senate voted on 100 to 1.
  That bill, if we pass it today, at 8:05 can be on the President's 
desk and he can sign it, more than 1\1/2\ months after the day of the 
terrorist attack against America. We must say to

[[Page 21438]]

the American people that the Federal Government will provide for their 
security on our airliners.
  It makes a difference to have every checked bag screened, to have 
airfield security, and to include the provision for Federal air 
marshals on our airplanes.
  However, Mr. Speaker, we need also to insure that this legislation 
allows for the opportunity for those existing contract screening 
employees to apply for these new federal jobs. Many of these employees 
desire to offer their services to the new system and they should be 
allowed to do so.

                              {time}  1415

  I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) because this is an 
important issue. We will for the first time in the United States of 
America be checking every bag that goes on the airplane, checking all 
checked bags. We will have Federal air marshals. We will have a 
reinforced cockpit. But what will be most important is the flight crew 
will have air hijacking training; give those frontline people, the 
flight attendants, the pilots, who we hope will not have to come out of 
the cockpit, that kind of safety training.
  This is an important piece of legislation. If Members only knew the 
Calderon family and the children, ages 4 years and 20 months old, that 
lost their mother in the World Trade crash, they would know that we 
have to pass this bill. I ask my colleagues to support this 
legislation. I am disappointed that we have yet to provide for the laid 
off workers impacted by Sept. 11, therefore I will vote to defeat the 
previous question.

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very 
thoughtful gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has 
distinguished herself in this body.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. I 
rise in strong support of the Oberstar substitute to make our skies 
safe.
  September 11 demonstrated that aviation security must be part of the 
frontline of our national defense. As such, it must be the 
responsibility of Federal Government. This means putting professional 
law enforcement agents in charge of securing our airports and our 
airplanes. This is essential to protect American citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who fly across the country back and forth 
each week have come to know the flight attendants, the pilots and the 
gate attendants very well. They are passionate as they tell us that 
today's system simply does not work. The present system has not worked 
in the past as we have seen, and it will not work in the future.
  The Oberstar substitute makes substantive and fundamental changes in 
our airport security. It will give the public confidence to fly again. 
We need professional law enforcement in charge, and this includes a 
process by which every piece of baggage can be screened. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Oberstar substitute.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. I had 
not planned to discuss this bill, but I felt obliged to come over here 
and join the fray.
  This airline security proposal is a much-needed piece of legislation. 
The Young-Mica bill federalizes the process and the process should 
indeed be federalized. But should we bring 25,000 to 28,000 additional 
Federal employees on the payroll to be subsidized by taxpayers where 
the Government will be virtually inflexible as far as getting them on 
board, getting them on-line? Lord only knows how long that would take. 
And once they are on-line, in the event of abuse of employment, to 
terminate them would be virtually impossible.
  I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we need to emulate other 
countries, but I do think we can learn from other countries. The United 
Kingdom, Belgium, Israel, the Netherlands, perhaps others tried 
federalizing screeners and baggage employees initially, and I am told 
that each of those four scrapped the plans and perhaps other countries 
have done so as well.
  I think to federalize the process is a course that we need to pursue 
to give the Federal Government to give the Congress, in fact, this body 
and the other body, much oversight to see that it is done properly, but 
not to have these additional thousands of employees on the Federal 
payroll to do a job that I think can better be done, provided the 
standards are properly enhanced; and I am confident they will be. 
Provided that is addressed, the way to do it is as laid out in Young-
Mica, Mr. Speaker.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Young-Mica bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), my very good friend.
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is certainly a superhero on 
behalf of the citizens of this country and across this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, when Thomas Edison was attempting to invent the light 
bulb, history suggested he tried thousands and thousands of ways, maybe 
8,000, maybe 10,000. Nobody said that Thomas Edison failed to invent 
the light bulb. They said he simply discovered 10,000 ways that it 
would not work. So I am here because I know I have to be very careful 
about the words that I use about the manager's amendment, so I cannot 
call it shameless or callous or indifferent or dispassionate because 
that may intrude upon House rules.
  So let me simply say that it will not work. I am here to represent 
people that are out of work and who need to work. I am here to 
represent people who ride the airplanes on a daily basis and are 
waiting for Congress to provide some common sense to protect those 
riders who have to fly across America, from sea to shining sea as we 
would wave our flag. I support the Oberstar substitute amendment 
because it will work.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that the debate has already begun on this issue, 
and I would like to take just a couple of moments to say what this bill 
is not.
  I have been following the media coverage and many people say that 
this measure, the package that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is 
going to be managing here, will block the federalization of those who 
are screeners at airports. It does not do that at all.
  Basically, what we are saying is rather than having the United States 
Congress micromanage the process of determining what the very best 
system is to ensure the safety and security of travelers is to allow 
some kind of flexibility.
  We know that under this bill there would be a new Secretary who would 
handle this, but frankly the Secretary of Transportation is the former 
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in this 
place, one of the predecessors to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young). He was a Democratic Member of this House. He is still a 
Democrat as far as I know, and he is our former colleague, Norm Mineta; 
and he is the Secretary of Transportation.
  What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that they have the 
flexibility, the tools so that they can go forward and decide how to 
best implement a system that will ensure the safety of our travelers 
here in the United States. So I think that that needs to be understood 
as we proceed with this debate.
  The rule is very fair. It does provide, in fact, an opportunity for 
not only a manager's amendment, which the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) will be offering, addressing a wide range of concerns, and we 
worked very carefully to make modifications in his manager's amendment 
so we could address some of the concerns of Members who came forward 
over the last few days; and at the same time we do provide the

[[Page 21439]]

Democratic substitute, which the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) will be offering.
  I think that at the end of the day we clearly should pass this rule, 
and I think there should be strong bipartisan support for that; but 
understand that we are not preempting any kind of decision that this 
administration might make. It is just that we entrust with them the 
power and the authority to make what we believe will be an appropriate 
decision to ensure the safety of all travelers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Florida's (Mr. Hastings) courtesy in allowing me to speak on this rule 
and this issue.
  I take rare exception with my friend from California who just spoke. 
The notion somehow that we are going to establish a system that is 
going to deal with the problems of an already failed, decentralized, 
privatized system for hundreds of airports is not micromanagement. 
Being able to step forward with a Federal program similar to what we 
had with the Customs Service, what we have benefiting people here in 
the Capitol, as my good friend from Florida has pointed out, is not 
micromanagement.
  What we are doing is acknowledging that the American public deserves 
our best. The Senate has already ratified by a hundred votes a program 
that steps up. We are not Europe where we have one or two airports in a 
small country. We have more airports in a small portion of the United 
States than they have in the entire European Union.
  The only way we are going to get the training, the professionalism 
and the uniform protection around the country is to vote for the 
Oberstar proposal. I strongly urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I commend him on fashioning a rule that I think is fair and 
allows for a spirited debate on this subject.
  I would simply say to my colleagues in the House that the bottom line 
here is how do we make air travel as safe and secure as we possibly 
can. It is not about whether it is Federal employees or it is not 
Federal employees. The President of the United States, President Bush, 
has asked for the House proposal and the House approach which gives him 
the discretion and the latitude to say whether or not we ought to have 
Federal employees; and perhaps in some cases, particularly at the 
bigger airports, that will make sense.
  The problem with the Senate bill is it treats airports across this 
country differently. There are the bigger airports that will have one 
level of safety and security; and the smaller ones, like many that I 
represent in South Dakota, will have an entirely different set of 
safety and security standards.
  Secondly, it charges people who fly from remote locations, airports 
like those that I represent, a higher fee. That is inherently unfair.
  We need a system that provides safety and security and treats air 
travelers the same, irrespective of where they originate. That is what 
we ought to get. That is what this bill does, and I hope that we can 
adopt it today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my 
distinguished colleague from New York how many more speakers he has.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of speakers; and once 
the gentleman yields back his time, I will close out with a summary.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). I would say to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that both sides have 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time, the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who 
has so ably led the debate on our side on this rule; and I do 
appreciate that the rule makes in order the Oberstar-Ganske substitute 
without playing any parliamentary games with it.
  In a moment, the manager on the Republican side for the rule will be 
offering an amendment to substitute a new manager's amendment for the 
manager's amendment made in order last night, and I call this the 
weight-and-balance amendment. It is an aviation term used on board 
small commuter aircraft when they need to shift people and baggage 
around to make sure the plane does not tilt one way or another or 
crash. They have so much ballast on board this bill that it is about to 
sink.
  So now they are coming in adding parking lots for financial aid with 
other airport restaurants, shops, concessionaries. They are taking out 
something which is very embarrassing, preferred, in the gentleman's 
language, I think it means deferred, compensation for airline 
employees. That is the well-known Delta amendment, Delta Airlines, and 
then adds language for hiring airline workers to screeners, and where 
possible, security companies should be American companies.
  That is really going to be a fun thing to do. They are going to do an 
awful lot of negotiating and renegotiating of contracts. They are going 
to have a fun time with that; but then my good friend, the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation, characterized the Senate bill as sloppily 
drawn, hastily drawn, but there is a lot of haste in the provisions 
here in this new manager's amendment that are internally contradictory.
  I just think that it is ditch a little here, add a little there and 
again it is hastily drawn.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my 
distinguished colleague, we have one speaker remaining, and if the 
gentleman would utilize at least one of his speakers.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
colleague, and I yield myself the remaining time.
  I have heard an alarming amount of discussion on this floor of the 
House today, suggesting that there may be something wrong with 
federalizing employees who have the responsibility to check luggage and 
screen passengers.

                              {time}  1430

  I have been a Federal employee three times in my life, and each of 
those three times I felt a whole whale of a lot more secure than I did 
when I was a minimum-wage worker stripping celery. What federalization 
does is provide worker security, it provides better wages, it provides 
better health care, the same kind of health care that we have, and it 
enhances morale.
  All of us go through those checkpoints at airports and all of us are 
confronted with the same persons that had the responsibility on 
September 11 who, in many instances, are poorly trained, poorly paid, 
and their morale is at its lowest ebb on a continuing basis. At the 
very least we need to ensure that they are trained.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can take up the 
Airline Industry Worker Benefits bill immediately after passage of the 
Insecure Airline Security bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the Democrat minority time 
has expired?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, let me just again try to set the record 
straight. We heard speakers say that these screeners, and they continue 
to pick on sort of the lowest end of the feeding chain here, the lowest 
paid, were at fault on September 11.
  My fellow colleagues, our intelligence system and Federal employees

[[Page 21440]]

involved in intelligence failed. We did not know who the hijackers 
were. Our Federal employees who issued visas failed, because most of 
the hijackers came into this country with visas issued by Federal 
Government employees. Our FAA failed because we had no rules in place 
for box cutters.
  We have no provision for expedited rulemaking in the Senate bill, and 
that is the biggest flaw. It takes, on average, 3.8 years to pass a 
rule through the Department of Transportation. Look at the bill. They 
leave technology with the Department of Transportation; 3.8 years to 
get in place technology that will do the job. It will not work.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The comprehensive legislation before us today focuses on our Nation's 
security system. The security plan establishes a new transportation 
security administration within the Department of Transportation that 
will be responsible for security of all forms of transportation, not 
just air travel.
  As the holiday season fast approaches, it is more important than ever 
that Americans are free to spend time with their families and loved 
ones. It is incumbent upon us to do everything in our power to make 
sure their travel by any means, but especially by air, is as safe and 
secure as possible. By passing this rule and its underlying 
legislation, we can quickly move forward with the important business of 
making our airports safe and secure for the American people.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Reynolds

  Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Reynolds:
       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be in order in lieu of the amendment printed 
     in House Report 107-264 and numbered 1.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

                         Amendment to H.R. 3150

                     Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

       Page 1, line 6, strike ``Secure Transportation for America 
     Act of 2001'' and insert ``Airport Security Federalization 
     Act of 2001''.
       In the table of contents after line 8, strike the item 
     relating to section 15 and insert the following:
Sec. 15. Technical corrections.
       Page 2, before line 9, insert the following:

                       TITLE I--AVIATION SECURITY

       Redesignate sections 2 through 22 of the bill as sections 
     101 through 121, respectively.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill, accordingly.
       Page 13, line 17, strike ``(1) in subsection (a) by 
     striking'' and inserting the following:
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``a cabin of''; and
       (B) by striking
       Page 14, line 2, strike ``The responsibility'' and insert 
     the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The responsibility
       Page 14, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(2) Additional screening authority.--The Under Secretary 
     may perform any such additional screening of passengers and 
     property on passenger aircraft in air transportation that 
     originates in the United States or intrastate air 
     transportation that the Under Secretary deems necessary to 
     enhance aviation security.
       Page 14, line 20, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the final period and insert the following:
       ``(g) Deputization of Airport Screening Personnel.--The 
     Under Secretary shall deputize, for enforcement of such 
     Federal laws as the Under Secretary determines appropriate, 
     all airport screening personnel as Federal transportation 
     security agents and shall ensure that such agents operate 
     under common standards and common uniform, insignia, and 
     badges. The authority to arrest an individual may be 
     exercised only by supervisory personnel who are sworn, full-
     time law enforcement officers.''.
       Page 15, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(7) a requirement that any private security firm retained 
     to provide airport security services be owned and controlled 
     by a citizen of the United States, to the extent that the 
     President determines that there are firms owned and 
     controlled by such citizens;
       Page 16, line 1, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       Page 16, line 2, strike ``and''.
       Page 16, line 3, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       Page 16, line 7, strike both periods and the closing 
     quotation marks and insert ``; and'' and the following:
       ``(10) a preference for the hiring of any individual who is 
     a former employee of an air carrier and whose employment with 
     the air carrier was terminated as a result of a reduction in 
     the workforce of the air carrier.''.
       Page 16, lines 11 and 12, strike ``Secure Transportation 
     for America Act of 2001'' and insert ``Airport Security 
     Federalization Act of 2001''.
       Page 16, line 20, strike ``pursuant'' and insert ``pursuant 
     to''.
       Page 19, line 22, strike ``and''.
       Page 20, line 2, strike the period and insert ``; and'' and 
     the following:
       (J) the ability to demonstrate daily a fitness for duty 
     without any impairment due to illegal drugs, sleep 
     deprivation, medication, or alcohol.
       Page 21, line 14, strike ``and''.
       Page 21, line 20, strike the period and insert a semicolon 
     and the following:
       ``(5) require air carriers to provide, on a space-available 
     basis, to an off-duty Federal air marshal a seat on a flight 
     to the airport nearest the marshal's home at no cost to the 
     marshal or the United States Government if the marshal is 
     traveling to that airport after completing his or her 
     security duties; and
       ``(6) provide, in choosing among applicants for a position 
     as a Federal air marshal, a preference for the hiring of a 
     pilot of an air carrier whose employment with the air carrier 
     was terminated as a result of a reduction in the workforce of 
     the air carrier if the pilot is otherwise qualified for the 
     position.
       Page 22, line 3, after ``consultation with'' insert ``and 
     concurrence of''.
       Page 22, before line 10, insert the following:
       (c) Basic Pay Defined.--Section 8331(3)(E) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(E) availability pay--
       ``(i) received by a criminal investigator under section 
     5545a of this title; or
       ``(ii) received after September 11, 2001, by a Federal air 
     marshal of the Department of Transportation;''.
       Page 24, line 1, strike ``Provide'' and insert ``Establish 
     performance goals for individuals described in paragraph (6), 
     provide''.
       Page 24, lines 2 and 3, strike ``individuals described in 
     paragraph (6)'' and insert ``such individuals,''.
       Page 26, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(16) Establish a uniform system of identification for all 
     State and local law enforcement personnel for use in 
     obtaining permission to carry weapons in aircraft cabins and 
     in obtaining access to a secured area of an airport.
       ``(17) Establish requirements under which air carriers, 
     under the supervision of the Under Secretary, could implement 
     trusted passenger programs and use available technologies to 
     expedite the security screening of passengers who participate 
     in such programs, thereby allowing security screening 
     personnel to focus on those passengers who should be subject 
     to more extensive screening.
       ``(18) In consultation with the Commissioner of Food and 
     Drugs, develop security procedures under which a medical 
     product to be transported on a flight of an air carrier would 
     not be subject to manual or x-ray inspection if conducting 
     such an inspection would irreversibly damage the product.
       ``(19) Develop security procedures to allow passengers 
     transporting a musical instrument on a flight of an air 
     carrier to transport the instrument in the passenger cabin of 
     the aircraft, notwithstanding any size or other restriction 
     on carry-on baggage but subject to such other reasonable 
     terms and conditions as may be established by the Under 
     Secretary or the air carrier, including imposing additional 
     charges by the air carrier.
       ``(20) Provide for the use of wireless and wire line data 
     technologies enabling the private and secure communication of 
     threats to aid in the screening of passengers and other 
     individuals on airport property who are identified on any 
     State or Federal security-related data base for the purpose 
     of having an integrated response coordination of various 
     authorized airport security forces.
       Page 26, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 7 
     on page 27 and insert the following:
       ``(d) Property Security Program.--
       ``(1) Checked baggage.--
       ``(A) Final deadline for screening.--A system must be in 
     operation to screen all checked baggage at all airports in 
     the United States no later than December 31, 2003.
       ``(B) Use of explosive detection equipment.--The Under 
     Secretary shall ensure that explosive detection equipment 
     installed at airports to screen checked baggage is used to 
     the maximum extent possible.
       ``(C) Installation of additional explosive detection 
     equipment.--The Under Secretary shall install additional 
     explosive detection equipment at airports as soon as possible 
     to ensure that all checked baggage is screened before being 
     placed in an aircraft.
       ``(D) Interim bag-match programs.--Until the Under 
     Secretary has installed enough explosive detection equipment 
     at airports to ensure that all checked baggage is screened, 
     the Under Secretary shall require air carriers to implement 
     bag-match programs that ensure that no checked baggage is 
     placed in an aircraft unless the passenger who checks the 
     baggage is aboard the aircraft.
       ``(2) Cargo deadline.--A system must be in operation to 
     screen all cargo that is to be

[[Page 21441]]

     transported in passenger aircraft in air transportation and 
     intrastate air transportation as soon as possible after the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph.
       Page 29, line 10, strike ``and'' and insert the following:
       (2) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(G) Background checks of current employees.--A background 
     check (including a criminal history record check and a review 
     of available law enforcement data bases and records of other 
     governmental and international agencies) shall be required 
     for any individual who currently has unescorted access to an 
     aircraft of an air carrier or foreign air carrier, unescorted 
     access to a secured area of an airport in the United States 
     that serves an air carrier or foreign air carrier, or is 
     responsible for screening passengers or property, or both, 
     unless that individual was subject to such a background check 
     before the individual began his or her current employment or 
     is exempted from such a check under section 107.31(m) of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.''; and


       Page 29, line 11, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 34, strike line 23 and all that follows through line 4 
     on page 35 and insert the following:
       ``(c) Airport Security.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 a total of 
     $1,500,000,000 to reimburse airport operators for direct 
     costs incurred by such operators to comply with new, 
     additional, or revised security requirements imposed on such 
     operators by the Federal Aviation Administration or 
     Transportation Security Administration on or after September 
     11, 2001. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       ``(2) Conditions.--Before providing financial assistance to 
     an airport operator with funds appropriated pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall require the operator to 
     provide assurances that the operator will--
       ``(A) meet with the tenants of the airport (other than air 
     carriers and foreign air carriers) to discuss adjustments of 
     the rent of the tenants to account for losses in revenue 
     incurred by the tenants on and after September 11, 2001; and
       ``(B) provide to the Secretary an itemized list of costs 
     incurred by the operator to comply with the security 
     requirements described in paragraph (1), including costs 
     relating to landing fees, automobile parking revenues, rental 
     cars, restaurants, and gift shops.''.
       Page 36, line 9, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert 
     ``paragraph (2)''.
       Page 39, lines 16 and 17, strike ``Secure Transportation 
     for America Act of 2001'' and insert ``Airport Security 
     Federalization Act of 2001''.
       Page 43, line 22, after ``sponsor'' insert ``or at a 
     privately owned or operated airport passenger terminal 
     financed by indebtedness incurred by the sponsor''.
       Page 44, beginning on line 25, strike ``Secure 
     Transportation for America Act of 2001'' and insert ``Airport 
     Security Federalization Act of 2001''.
       Page 45, after line 15, insert the following:
       (d) Maximum Amount of Compensation Payable Per Air 
     Carrier.--Section 103 of such Act is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(d) Compensation for Air Carriers Providing Air Ambulance 
     Services.--
       ``(1) Set-aside.--The President may set aside a portion of 
     the amount of compensation payable to air carriers under 
     section 101(a)(2) to provide compensation to air carriers 
     providing air ambulance services. The President shall reduce 
     the $4,500,000,000 specified in subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) by 
     the amount set aside under this subsection.
       ``(2) Distribution of amounts.--The President shall 
     distribute the amount set aside under this subsection 
     proportionally among air carriers providing air ambulance 
     services based on an appropriate auditable measure, as 
     determined by the President.''.
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 122. REQUIREMENT TO HONOR PASSENGER TICKETS OF OTHER 
                   CARRIERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 41722. Requirement to honor passenger tickets of other 
       carriers

       ``Each air carrier that provides scheduled air 
     transportation on a route shall provide, to the extent 
     practicable, air transportation to passengers ticketed for 
     air transportation on that route by any other air carrier 
     that suspends, interrupts, or discontinues air passenger 
     service on the route by reason of an act of war or terrorism 
     or insolvency or bankruptcy of the carrier.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
``41722. Requirement to honor passenger tickets of other carriers.''.

     SEC. 123. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CERTAIN AVIATION MATTERS.

       (a) Flight Service Station Employees.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration should continue negotiating in good faith with 
     flight service station employees of the Administration with a 
     goal of reaching agreement on a contract as soon as possible.
       (b) War Risk Insurance.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Transportation should implement section 202 
     of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act 
     (Public Law 107-42) so as to make war risk insurance 
     available to vendors, agents, and subcontractors of general 
     aviation aircraft.
       (c) Transport of Animals.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     an air carrier that transports mail under a contract with the 
     United States Postal Service should transport any animal that 
     the Postal Service allows to be shipped through the mail.
       (d) Screening.--It is the sense of Congress that the Under 
     Secretary of Transportation for Security should require, as 
     soon as practicable, that all property carried in a passenger 
     aircraft in air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation (including checked baggage) be screened by any 
     currently available means, including X-ray machine, hand-held 
     metal detector, explosive detection system equipment, or 
     manual search.
       (e) Contracts for Airport Security Services.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that, in awarding a contract for airport 
     security services, the Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security should, to the maximum extent practicable, award the 
     contract to a firm that is owned and controlled by a citizen 
     of the United States.

                     TITLE II--VICTIMS COMPENSATION

     SEC. 201. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF 
                   CRASHES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

       Section 408 of the Air Transportation Safety and System 
     Stabilization Act (Public Law 107-42; 115 Stat. 240; 49 
     U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended--
       (1) by amending the section heading to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 408. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT 
                   OF CRASHES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.'';

       (2) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) General Limitation of Liability.--Except as provided 
     in this section, no Federal court or agency or State court or 
     agency shall enforce any Federal or State law holding any 
     person, or any State or political subdivision thereof, liable 
     for any damages arising out of the hijacking and subsequent 
     crashes of American Airlines flights 11 or 77, or United 
     Airlines flights 93 or 175, on September 11, 2001.'';
       (3) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(4) Damages.--If any party to any action brought under 
     this subsection is determined to be liable--
       ``(A) no damages in the aggregate ordered by the court to 
     be paid by such party shall exceed the amount of insurance, 
     minus any payments made pursuant to a court approved 
     settlement, which such party is determined to have obtained 
     prior to September 11, 2001, and which is determined to cover 
     such party's liability for any damages arising out of the 
     hijacking and subsequent crashes of American Airlines flights 
     11 or 77, or United Airlines flights 93 or 175, on September 
     11, 2001;
       ``(B) such party shall not be liable for interest prior to 
     the judgment or for punitive damages intended to punish or 
     deter; and
       ``(C) the court shall reduce the amount of damages awarded 
     to a plaintiff by the amount of collateral source 
     compensation that the plaintiff has received or is entitled 
     to receive as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft 
     crashes of September 11, 2001.
       ``(5) Attorneys' fees.--Reasonable attorneys' fees for work 
     performed in any action brought under this subsection shall 
     be subject to the discretion of the court, but in no event 
     shall any attorney charge, demand, receive, or collect for 
     services rendered, fees in excess of 20 percent of the 
     damages ordered by the court to be paid pursuant to this 
     subsection, or in excess of 20 percent of any court approved 
     settlement made of any claim cognizable under this 
     subsection. Any attorney who charges, demands, receives, or 
     collects for services rendered in connection with such claim 
     any amount in excess of that allowed under this subsection, 
     if recovery be had, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or 
     imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'';
       (4) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Exclusion.--Nothing in this section shall in any way 
     limit any liability of any person who--
       ``(1) hijacks any aircraft or commits any terrorist act; or
       ``(2) knowingly participates in a conspiracy to hijack any 
     aircraft or commit any terrorist act.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(d) Disclaimer.--Nothing herein implies that any person 
     is liable for damages arising out of the hijacking and 
     subsequent crashes of American Airlines flights 11 or 77, or 
     United Airlines flights 93 or 175, on September 11, 2001.
       ``(e) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' 
     means any State of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern

[[Page 21442]]

     Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and any other territory of possession of the 
     United States or any political subdivision of any of the 
     foregoing.''.

  Mr. REYNOLDS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read, printed in the Record, and 
shall not be deemed as a precedent, although the Reading Clerk has done 
an outstanding job thus far.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. COLLINS. Objection, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued reading the amendment.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reading Clerk for his outstanding job of 
reading the amendment that I brought before the House. This simply 
substitutes the manager's amendment made in order last night by the 
Committee on Rules with a new manager's amendment that eliminates a 
provision dealing with preferred compensation for airline employees, 
and adds airport parking lots to a provision that requires airports 
receiving financial aid to work with airport restaurants, shops and 
other concessionaires on rent adjustments to account for their loss of 
revenue.
  The new manager's amendment also adds language that establishes a 
preference for the hiring of laid-off airline workers as screeners, and 
a provision that states where possible, airline security companies 
should be American companies. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on both the amendment and the resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

  Previous Question for Rule on H.R. 3150, Secure Transportation for 
                          America Act of 2001

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision in this 
     resolution, immediately after disposition of H.R. 3150, the 
     Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the Committee 
     of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 2955) to provide assistance 
     for employees who are separated from employment as a result 
     of reductions in service by air carriers, and closures of 
     airports, caused by terrorist actions or security measures. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against considerations of the bill are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered as read. 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. 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.
       Sec.  . If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on H.R. 3150 or H.R. 2955, 
     then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of that bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on ordering 
the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting on the question of agreeing to 
the amendment and on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 207, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 419]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin

[[Page 21443]]


     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Conyers
     Dunn
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Johnson (CT)
     Rangel
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1519

  Ms. McCOLLUM changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  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 379, 
noes 50, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 420]

                               AYES--379

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--50

     Andrews
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Carson (IN)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frost
     Green (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Kilpatrick
     Lampson
     Lee
     McCollum
     McIntyre
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Scott
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Towns
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Dunn
     Gephardt
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1530

  Messrs. FLAKE, DEUTSCH, BISHOP, and CUMMINGS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MORAN of Virginia, CLEMENT, RUSH, Mrs. CLAYTON, Messrs. 
ABERCROMBIE, HONDA, DICKS, and Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________