[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26458-26465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2115, VISION 100-CENTURY OF AVIATION 
                          REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), one of the outstanding members 
of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for bringing this 
legislation to the floor, and also for his courage and fortitude in 
standing up over several weeks of sometimes personal attacks. In trying 
to bring this legislation to the floor, the gentleman has shown 
remarkable composure and leadership.
  As every member of the Subcommittee on Aviation knows, and I hope the 
Members in this Chamber appreciate, this conference report contains 
many provisions that will be helpful to the ailing aviation industry. 
Of particular interest in my district, and districts and airports all 
over this Nation, is a provision in this bill that sets up an airport 
security improvement grant program so that airports can replace baggage 
conveyer systems, reconfigure terminal baggage areas, pursue projects 
that will enable the TSA to deploy explosive detection systems, and 
fund other airport security capital improvement projects.
  This grant program allows the TSA to issues letters of intent, or 
LOIs, so that airports can pursue security projects quickly and 
efficiently. Denver International, my airport, recently received an LOI 
in the amount of $67.5 million. With this LOI, Denver International has 
aggressively pursued plans to install an in-line baggage screening 
system. These efforts will improve the safety and efficiency of the 
airport.
  This bill also decreases the LOI local match for Denver from 25 
percent to 10 percent reflecting the will of Congress that national 
security projects should be paid for by the Federal Government. This 
change in the local share will help the Denver International Airport 
tremendously.
  Finally, with regard to the AIP authorization within this bill, 
Denver International also receives $5.3 million per year in AIP 
allotment. Reauthorizing AIP will allow the airport to address other 
safety and capacity needs. These are just a few of the reasons why I 
stand in strong support of the legislation and urge its passage.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for our 
committee. I have been on this committee for 11 years, and my 
constituents always ask, how are things going in Washington? I say it 
is like swimming with the sharks; but today, it is a shark attack. This 
conference report is a shark attack on the people of this great 
country.
  Members travel at least twice a week, sometimes four times a week. We 
have put a lot of money in the aviation industry. In fact, over $18 
billion.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this bill, but this 
privatization of FAA is a poison pill. It is a poison pill for the 
traveling public. I have one question to ask: I want to know which one 
of the President's campaign contributors wants to run the national air 
traffic controller towers, is Halliburton doing the control tower work 
now?
  The American people deserve a clean bill that does not compromise 
their safety and security. This bill does not do that. I want my 
colleagues to vote down this very dangerous bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this conference 
report, and I will get to why I am going to do it in a minute, but 
before I do, I want to talk about the process that has gone on.
  When a bill leaves the House in a certain condition, and the certain 
condition in this case was the protection of the air traffic control 
system, and the Senate with the Lautenberg amendment does the same 
thing and goes a little further. When a bill goes to conference and 
comes back looking different, we are left on our side with the 
conclusion that can only come from one place.
  As a Member of this body, it concerns me that we need to have, and 
this message is really for my leadership, we are a coequal branch of 
the United States Government. And if we are just going to accede to 
what it is that the administration wants to do, I, as a Republican, 
have difficulty.
  I listened carefully to this debate, and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica) is right, during the Clinton administration the contract 
tower program was used extensively by the Clinton administration, and 
under the Bush administration, there have been no privatizations. The 
executive order that President Clinton issued as he left office, 
countermanded by President Bush, is why we find ourselves here today.
  The contract tower program, if run responsibly, does not mean the 
death of the aviation system in this country. But I would suggest, and 
again to my leadership, this is not about, and it never was about, the 
69 towers. It is about the belief by Members on the other side of the 
aisle and by Members on this side, today it is 69 small airport towers, 
tomorrow it is Davis-Bacon, the next day it is the privatization and 
contracting out of the Federal workforce. There comes a point where 
enough has to be enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the bill. As to why I am going to 
vote for the bill, I was asked to get the 69 towers out of the bill, 
and I am not taking credit for that, but I went to my leadership with 
others, and this recommittal does that. I gave my word to the 
leadership, and I am going to keep my word and vote for the bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to commend the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his conscience-stricken 
statement and for his ever-conscience-driven conduct in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think there might be something in this 
legislation more onerous than the privatization caper, as referred to 
about a half hour ago, and that is that the FAA reauthorization bill 
conference report contains a provision that gives foreign airlines, 
including obviously Air China, virtually total access to the U.S. 
domestic air cargo markets through the Alaskan gateway, in 
contravention of the very long-standing policy accepted by both 
Republican and Democratic administrations.
  Here is the catch: There is no reciprocal benefit for American 
carriers and their employees, nor is there any provision for the United 
States to collect one dime in taxes on the millions of dollars of 
revenue that these foreign airlines will earn by operating in our 
domestic markets, and that is a fact. There is nothing in the 
legislation. This is one-sided legislation. It will take our Nation's 
air transport industry and its employees in the wrong direction. I 
think it is wrong.
  Now, we have heard a lot of pontificating in the last month, 
particularly from the other side and even from the administration, 
about let us make

[[Page 26459]]

trade fair, let us have parity in our commerce with other nations. 
Where is the parity in this bill? This is another foreign giveaway. Let 
us call it for what it is.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle is good at it, and I have to 
give them credit. They hide out and speak out of both sides of their 
mouth about trying to protect American workers, and at the same time we 
are doing this kind of legislation; that is the onerous part of this 
legislation. It could be far worse and far more damaging than the 
privatization issue.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) brought up the name of Alaska, I wish he 
understood the reasons this is in there. The gentleman talks about 
jobs. He may not have been to Alaska, but Alaska is in a unique 
position for refueling. That is something that is very important to my 
airport. Already, the airlines the gentleman is talking about have gone 
to Vancouver and solicited bids to land in Vancouver, break down their 
cargo and ship it to the United States. We are part of the United 
States.
  The difference between survival of the airport in Alaska, in 
Anchorage, is this part of this amendment. If it was not adopted, we 
would lose more than 400 jobs, 400 American jobs. And yes, I can say it 
is not point to point. These planes will come in, the cargo will be 
broken down and the planes will be refueled and sent back. The shipment 
will then be taken by Northwest and other airlines to other parts of 
the United States. It will create jobs, it will not lose jobs in 
Alaska.
  The gentleman talks about foreign. If the gentleman wants them to go 
to Canada, that is what will happen if Members vote against this bill. 
My airport will not survive. This is one of the biggest money makers 
for my airport, and to have someone say this is going to give jobs to 
foreigners is nonsense.

                              {time}  1800

  We are different. We are closer to the Orient. We are not New York or 
New Jersey, which is about the size, by the way, of Kodiak Island. Our 
survival is the Orient market. That is what we are working on. This is 
what this bill does.
  By the way, this is not my amendment. I am defending it because my 
senior Senator insisted upon it in the conference. We are a conference, 
and this is what this product is all about. Some may not agree with it, 
but I am saying it is about the survival of my airport.
  Just keep in mind, I hear about this, I am concerned about some of 
the misinformation coming from certain groups about the damage this 
will do to airlines in this Nation. It will not do so. It will benefit 
labor. It will benefit the workers in Alaska, and it will benefit my 
State of Alaska. That is what I am elected for.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I respect the 
statement of our chairman of the full committee, but this again is an 
example of the discussion we could have and should have had in a real 
House-Senate conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me express my 
appreciation for the kind of camaraderie we have on the committee. This 
is out of character for us to be on the floor discussing something in 
these tones. However, when we do not follow the rules and do not allow 
people to participate, this is what we get. That is why other 
committees are like that. I hope we do not continue this, because we 
have not had this in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment that 
this FAA reauthorization bill does not include language to protect the 
operations and certification functions performed in our air traffic 
control system. Recommitting this bill was absolutely necessary to fix 
a fatally flawed conference report that risked the safety of the flying 
public. Unfortunately, Republican conferees decided not to listen to 
the will of Congress and excluded language that would protect our 
Nation's air traffic control system from privatization.
  There are two critical functions of the air traffic control system 
that keep the system safe: certification and operations. Much of the 
debate on this bill has centered on prohibiting privatization of the 
operation functions performed by air traffic controllers and employees 
of 69 VFR towers. Operation of the air traffic control system, however, 
is only one part of the air traffic control system. In order for our 
system to remain safe and efficient in this area where we still have a 
great deal of fear, there must be language included in the bill to 
protect the certification functions performed by FAA systems 
specialists.
  There are approximately 6,100 FAA systems specialists and technicians 
who install, repair, maintain, and certify over 50,000 systems and 
equipment that make up the air traffic control system. The 
certification functions performed by the systems specialists are 
critical to the safety and efficiency of the air traffic control system 
and, therefore, must be protected from privatization.
  Certification is the process that systems specialists and technicians 
use to ensure that the systems used to separate and control aircraft 
are working properly and interface correctly with the other 50,000 
systems and equipment in the NAS, Only the U.S. government, through its 
employees, is empowered to certify the air traffic control system. As a 
result, only FAA personnel with sufficient knowledge of the entire NAS 
may perform certification.
  An example of the important functions that systems specialist perform 
is the work they did for the Department of Defense after the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001. In the months after September 11th, the 
DoD realized that they did not have radar capabilities to see or hear 
air traffic activity within the U.S. borders. FAA systems specialists 
worked with the DoD to provide additional radar surveillance as well as 
data and voice communication capability to the military. What's really 
remarkable about this is that the bulk of the work was completed in 
only four months. The flexibility of the systems specialist workforce, 
their extensive knowledge of how the entire air traffic control system 
works as well as their ability to respond quickly to a problem would be 
lost if the work is contracted out.
  Safety should be the FAA's number one priority. The only way to 
ensure that this happens is to enact legislation that protects the most 
safety critical functions from privatization. This means that we must 
protect all of the functions relating to the control and separation of 
air traffic--functions performed by systems specialists and air traffic 
controllers.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), one of the distinguished members 
of our subcommittee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and chairman of our 
subcommittee for yielding me this time. I rise to pay tribute, first of 
all, to our committee chairman and for his willingness to recommit this 
bill and deal with the issue, part of which is being discussed today. 
Secondly, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) 
for his willingness to support this bill and addressing the fact that 
the committee, after the difficulties we had with the first report, 
addressed the concerns that were expressed.
  I want to now express my opinion for a second. I have heard far too 
often statements made that directly or indirectly seemed to accuse 
Members of this House of quibbling with the security of the American 
flying, traveling public. I know that is not really intended, because 
this bill and this conference report is all about the safety and 
security of the American traveling public. I respect differences on the 
tower issue. I respect that. But I know our President and I know no 
member of our subcommittee and I know every Member of this House is 
committed to seeing that air travel in this country is safe, which is 
why the issues that are never talked about in this debate are so 
important for me to bring out.
  The fact that we have codified and put into statute with this law the 
reimbursement to our airports and our airlines for the mandated 
security that is the responsibility to be put in, to see

[[Page 26460]]

to it that the money is spent, the security is there. We no longer deal 
with situations like last year where we have emergency supplementals 
with billions of dollars and people arguing about who should have 
really paid what. We have issued deadlines for installation of 
security, for baggage inspection, for all the other things that we are 
doing. And now through this bill, we are providing the mechanisms and 
ensuring the framework in which that takes place.
  So while I respect the differences that are debated and understand 
the points on both sides with regard to the towers, you should not 
throw the baby out with the bath water. This bill is about the safety 
of the American people and the flying public. This bill is about 
codifying that which since 9/11 we have grappled with regarding airport 
security and the installation of additional security. This is about the 
AIP. This is about the safety of the flying public. This is about an 
industry that is essential to the economy of the United States of 
America. I, like the gentleman from Ohio, will vote for this in its 
final passage because it is about the safety and security of the 
Americans and the Georgians that I represent flying safely in and out 
of one of the largest airports in the world, Hartsfield International.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the 
conference report on H.R. 2115, the FAA reauthorization bill. This 
conference report is an affront to the proper legislative procedures of 
this body and, worse yet, a threat to our Nation's stellar aviation 
safety record.
  As a member of the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I know firsthand that our committee developed strong, 
bipartisan legislation that this House almost unanimously passed 418-8 
last June. Yet today, we debate a controversial FAA reauthorization 
conference report that has sparked heated opposition. Why? The answer 
is simple. By bowing to industry pressure and Bush administration 
demands and by shutting Democrats out of conference deliberations, 
Republican leaders have crafted a report that compromises the safety 
and security of the flying public. In fact, this conference report is 
proof that the lessons of September 11 have been forgotten. Republican 
leaders have forgotten that on September 11, air traffic controllers 
safely landed 4,482 planes within 2 hours without one operation error. 
This is a system to protect, not endanger. Yet this conference report 
does just the opposite.
  By allowing for further privatization of the air traffic control 
system, which is really silent on it and the wording previously was 
``prohibit,'' Republican leaders wish to put air safety in the hands of 
the lowest bidder. That model did not work for airport security, and it 
will not work for our air traffic control system. In writing this 
conference report, Republican leaders have also forgotten the September 
11 lesson that flight crews are a critical line of defense in aviation 
security. This report drops a House-passed provision that would require 
TSA to issue security and antiterrorism training guidelines for our 
Nation's flight attendants. By making these guidelines optional, the 
Congress is effectively rejecting calls by flight attendants for 
greater security training to protect themselves, airline passengers, 
and the American public.
  I cannot in good conscience support this conference report. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just correct the record at this time. I have heard two Members 
from the minority side cite that on September 11 that some 4 to 5,000 
planes that were flying in the air were brought down safely by our air 
traffic control system. That is correct. But, in fact, some 219 of 
approximately 470 towers were contract towers, are contract towers, 
private towers. This is the statement that was put out in a $7 million 
NATCA, National Air Traffic Controllers, misinformation campaign. We 
have a system now today, we had a system on September 11 with contract 
towers and with fully staffed FAA towers.
  So they question the safety and security. We advocate no change. 
Nada. None. Zip. We have taken any mention of privatization out of 
this. We are only instituting the status quo, the status quo that we 
had on September 11.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to again fill out the record, if I may. It is not towers that bring 
aircraft down. At altitude, at 29,000 feet, the en route center steps 
aircraft down to 15,000 feet to a point where they are 40 miles out 
from the airport, at which point the terminal radar control facility 
takes over and brings aircraft to within 3 miles, at which point the 
easy part is done by the controllers in the towers. That is the real 
story. Let us not embellish this event of September 11.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this FAA 
reauthorization bill. While I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
worked hard on this legislation, I rise in opposition to not what they 
have done in their committee and in the light of day, but in opposition 
to what the majority party of this Congress, both Houses, has done in 
back rooms.
  Mr. Speaker, as all of us who represent airports know, airport noise 
is one of the biggest complaints we hear about. It is deafening. As the 
Congressman for LaGuardia Airport, I represent the largest amount of 
Americans who are acutely affected by airplane noise. The FAA through 
the Airport Improvement Program helps to fund noise abatement programs 
from schools and religious institutions to community centers to private 
homes. It has let the local airport operating authority set the noise 
level parameters for communities to qualify.
  In section 189 of this bill, the former Senate majority leader 
thought allowing local airport operating authorities to set their own 
levels was not good enough. Section 189 says that only people who live 
in the areas with higher than 65 decibels of aviation noise, the noise 
of a power lawn mower, will receive funding for noise abatement 
programs, leaving millions of people without the funding needed to 
abate their homes.
  This was all done without a single vote here on the floor of the 
House or a single vote on the floor of the Senate. It was done in the, 
quote-unquote, ``conference committee.'' This is a bad bill. That is 
just one example. My colleagues have gone through the other issues. 
This is a bad piece of legislation. This is not the way to make 
sausage. It is not the way to make legislation, either. It should be 
done in the light of day and should be done in the democratic way. We 
should all have an opportunity to vote on these issues before it gets 
to this point, which is not democratic; and it is not giving us an 
opportunity to really have an effect on making this legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I appreciate the statement of the gentleman from New York. This 
provision to which he refers is another example of egregious special 
interest legislation that was advocated by one airline. It was done 
without any consultation, without any discussion. It vitiates a signed 
agreement between an airline in Minnesota and the Metropolitan Airports 
Commission. It is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca).
  (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this conference 
report on H.R. 2115, which will give the President the freedom to 
privatize our air traffic controllers.

[[Page 26461]]

  How does this make Americans safer? We must ask ourselves, how does 
this make Americans safer? In a post-9/11 world, we must make safety a 
priority. So I ask again, why are we doing this? Is it cheaper? The 
answer is no. Privatizing increases our costs. Is this a good policy? 
The answer is no. Privatizing has failed miserably in other countries.
  Approximately 20,000 hard-working men and women of the FAA ensure the 
safety of more than one million passengers each day, and we should 
trust them to continue to do the job. This is why I say, nothing has 
been broken, so why do we need to fix it?
  The safety and security of the American people should not be the 
responsibility of the low bidders. It is the core responsibility of our 
American Government to make sure the safety is there. We must make sure 
that democracy is there. We have not allowed democracy by allowing this 
bill to come before us, and we should make sure that we vote no on 
this.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and leader for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this bill. Many have spoken 
against the provisions that privatize part of our Nation's air traffic 
control system. Others have objected to the failure to direct the 
certification and training of flight attendants. Others have condemned 
the process that seems to have shut out Democrats, particularly our 
leader, from participating in the drafting of this agreement. As much 
as we respect the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), we know that 
he could have added a great deal so we would not have had this 
contentious argument.
  I have one more reason to oppose it. In 1986, the Congress made an 
agreement with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to cede 
operational control and financing of our airports to our regional 
authority. The Metropolitan Washington Region has maintained our part 
of the bargain. This conference report breaks that agreement by adding 
20 more flights and going beyond the 1,250 mile perimeter rule. That is 
not right. It increases the safety concerns at National Airport.
  For this and many other reasons, I oppose this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference agreement.
  Many here have already spoken against provisions in this bill that 
would allow privatilization of our nation's air traffic control system, 
others have objected to this agreement's failure to direct the 
certification and training of flight attendants and still others have 
condemned a process that has shut out Democrats from participating in 
the drafting of this agreement.
  Let me add one more reason to vote against this bill.
  I object to this bill because it continues to intrude in the 
operations of this region's local airports.
  While I appreciate the good efforts of the chairman to restore 
general aviation at National, to compensate businesses injured by the 
current shutdown, and assist hometown carrier, U.S. Airways, operate 
quieter, more efficient regional jets, I cannot support the heavy hand 
of this Congress in violating two long-standing agreements and 
mandating that National accommodate more flights and flights outside 
the current perimeter rule restrictions.
  The agreement before us today continues to violate a promise this 
institution made to this region back in 1986.
  In 1986, Senator Elizabeth Dole, President Reagan's Secretary of 
Transportation, helped broker an agreement between the federal 
government, the Congress, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia to cede control of National and 
Dulles Airports to a regional authority that would have, in the words 
of current law, ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion 
in, operation and development of the airports.''
  In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to 
accept operational control of the airports and raise the money 
necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland and the District 
of Columbia have upheld their part of the bargain. Congress, however, 
has not honored its part of the deal.
  At least once every three years since this transfer took effect, 
Congress has tried to intervene and micro manage the operations of the 
two airports.
  There may be a federal interest, and I recognize that both commercial 
airports are still owned by the federal government, but should Congress 
really be trying to determine what are clearly economic and business 
decisions on what carriers fly where?
  With the bill before us today, Congress is once again telling the 
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to waive its existing rules 
and allow certain carriers more flights.
  Mr. Speaker, these additional flights take us further down a 
controversial road whose final destination will make few carriers happy 
and cause real economic harm.
  Three years ago, I spoke on the House floor opposing an FAA 
authorization bill that added more flights at National.
  At that time I warned that breaking the 1986 deal would bring us down 
a dangerous path in which every FAA authorization bill would become a 
vehicle for further tinkering and interference by Congress.
  Obviously not enough Members were sufficiently satisfied with the 
flights added in the last FAA reauthorization bill or we would not be 
back here again today with more changes.
  Who is happy with the proposed changes? Not U.S. Airways, Delta or 
United, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority nor the 
residents of this region.
  In fact, there is no solution that will satisfy everyone.
  But, continue down this path of forcing more flights and there will 
be some real economic consequences that will ultimately undermine both 
the quality and quantity of air service this region is fortunate to now 
receive.
  The point is being reached in which operational and safety 
constraints imposed by the type of runway and the number of gates, not 
slots, will limit the number of flights the airport is capable of 
handling.
  Once this threshold is crossed, both the quality and quantity of 
flights will be compromised.
  we risk:
  (1) Losing direct air service to many smaller cities, those that can 
least afford a disruption from an economic development standpoint,
  (2) We risk a reduction in international air service that may result 
in this region being bypassed in favor of other east coast airports 
with better transcontinental connections. (Hundreds of millions of 
dollars that have been invested to make Dulles an international gateway 
will have been imprudently invested), and
  (3) We risk more delays and congestion as operational limitations and 
space cause delays throughout the system, something LaGuardia 
encountered when its slot rule was repealed.
  (4) And, adding one more slot, one more flight, is one more than 
Washington area residents bargained for.
  I know the support isn't there to rollback the 20 new slots, 8 inside 
the perimeter and 12 outside, in this bill.
  But why pile it on with an additional provision that gives Congress 
yet another opportunity to tinker again with the operation of these two 
airports?
  Why create the added burden and economic uncertainty that this bill 
invites by denying these two commercial airports the ability to receive 
any new Airport Improvement Program grants or new Passenger Facility 
Charges beginning in 2008?
  Why single out and suspend federal assistance to just these two 
airports?
  I thought an understanding had been worked out when Delegate Norton 
offered her amendment earlier this year on the House floor that this 
obnoxious provision would be removed in conference.
  Congress doesn't need this provision.
  There is already sufficient oversight over the airports to ensure 
that any federal interest is protected.
  We've got the FAA reauthorization bill.
  In addition, there's the authority's own board of directors that must 
include 3 presidential appointments approved by the Senate.
  In the past former Members of Congress have served on this board, and 
the GAO has unique statutory authority to audit the activities and 
transactions of the board.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress, visitors to the nation's capital, businesses 
and local residents have all benefited from the capital improvements 
that have occurred at the airport since the regional authority took 
over control.
  Let's not place $100 of millions in future development at risk.
  Let the two airports continue to be treated like all other commercial 
airports for purposes of receiving improvement grants and new passenger 
facility charges.
  Reject this agreement.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page 26462]]

  Mr. Speaker, safety is not just one issue. Safety is a multiplicity 
of overlying redundancies. Safety depends on the interaction of the 
human and the technological.
  What I object to in this proceeding is the lack of process, a lack of 
opportunity for debate on the future of the air traffic control system. 
Make no mistake about it, this debate is about the future of air 
traffic control in America. This is about how our air traffic control 
system will be managed in the future and by whom. It should be done in 
the public interest, not in the private interest. All that stands 
between the traveling public and a failure at seven miles in the air or 
on the ground is our air traffic controller and the equipment he will 
or she operates. We must keep it in the public sector.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do sincerely believe that what is at stake here is the 
future integrity of the air traffic control system in the United 
States. There is none better in the world. I fear that in the future, 
fragmentation of that system, taking major control towers and putting 
them into the private for-profit sector, will bring pressures to bear 
that will ultimately cause a catastrophe.
  Look at Europe. Just last year, a midair collision. We have not had a 
midair collision in a really long time in the United States of America.
  This is not about making the system safer, it is not about making it 
more efficient. The Europeans, the Canadians and others admit that our 
traffic controllers are 75 percent more productive than their's. So it 
is not about making it more productive. It is not about making it 
safer.
  The only reason that we are opening the door here, and we are 
blasting the door open here by removing any restriction on 
privatization, as was in the original bill, this White House has shown 
it will fight to privatize. They have already threatened to veto the 
bill unless we inserted the specificity of 71 towers. So they are 
clearly going to go ahead with privatization.
  Now, they are going to go ahead, not because they think it will be 
safer, not because it will be more efficient. I do not even believe it 
will be less expensive. The other failed air traffic privatizations 
around the world have actually cost the taxpayers more, and they have 
had to be bailed out in England and in Australia.
  This is a ticking time bomb that I believe one day will kill 
Americans, and I just cannot believe that we are going ahead in this 
form without the proper consultation, without a conference, but 
vitiating all the rules of the House, just so someone might be able to 
make a little bit of money on something that is run so well by the 
government today.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close 
the debate on the conference report on H.R. 2115.
  Mr. Speaker, indeed, this legislation is important to the success of 
aviation in this country. This particular industry is one of the great 
job creators, and no nation relies on safe and independent operation of 
aircraft more than the United States.
  I disagree on the point that has been raised here in closing. We do 
not change in any way the current status of contract towers. We do not 
mention privatization. We have taken out some 69 airports that were 
identified in the previous conference report.
  I believe that this bill strikes many carefully proposed compromises 
that address the many needs of our aviation system while providing for 
its future. I believe that this will also be a boon to many of our 
communities, to restore jobs, to provide economic opportunity in an 
industry that has been hard hit by the effects of September 11.
  So we have an opportunity to help small communities. We have an 
opportunity to continue a safe and cost-effective system.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members on the other side of the 
aisle for their cooperation. I know that there is one issue in 
particular that has brought us apart, but eventually it would lead to 
this debate and to this day. I think this has been a healthy debate, 
and I think that will be resolved by the vote that is to take place.
  The U.S. aviation industry is the strongest in the world, and I am 
committed to keeping it that way. H.R. 2115 and this conference report 
provide stability and funding to ensure that our Nation will continue 
to lead. I urge all Members to put aside partisan politics and to vote 
to pass this conference report for H.R. 2115.
  Again, I thank my colleagues and the staff for their fine work, and 
especially the Members of the minority.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
conference report for H.R. 2115.
  I am deeply disappointed that despite this Congress's actions to 
recommit the bill to the conference committee, we are still dealing 
with a flawed bill. Over three months ago, the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee passed a good bill out of committee, a bill 
that had my strong support.
  Two times, this bill has come out of Conference Committee, and both 
times the resulting product has been unacceptable. This bill contains 
significant changes from the committee passed bill--changes that have 
not previously been approved by the House or the Senate. I believe it 
is telling that not a single Democrat in the House or the Senate signed 
onto the conference report either time because of these egregious 
changes.
  The version of the bill that we are considering today removes the 
language that would allow the FAA to contract out the operation of air 
traffic control towers at 69 towers nationwide. However, this is not an 
improvement over the previous version of the bill. Simply striking the 
provision does nothing to ensure that our nation's air traffic control 
system will not be contracted out to the lowest bidder. In fact, this 
bill would make it easier to privatize the air traffic control system 
by not prohibiting future privatization. We know that the 
administration supports privatization, as demonstrated by their many 
outsourcing initiatives and the reclassification of air traffic control 
as a ``commercial activity.'' Every tower in this Nation is now at risk 
for privatization.
  In addition, this bill fails to address concerns that were in the 
previous version of the bill, which include allowing China essentially 
open access to our cargo markets, modifications to the Essential Air 
Service program requiring small communities to pay a substantial sum 
for their air service, and changes to the flight attendant training 
programs that basically gut the requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the rule 
accompanying the Conference Report for the reauthorization of the 
Federal Aviation Administration. I also oppose the Conference Report, 
itself. The rule would allow the Republicans to get away with passing a 
Conference Report without ever holding public meetings to work out an 
acceptable compromise.
  And, Mr. Speaker, passing the rule ultimately allows the Republicans 
to get away with defying the will of the House. They excluded the 
minority Party from the conference, and they wrote a brand new bill out 
of thin air that contradicts the bills that passed out of both 
chambers.
  One example of this slight-of-hand relates to the Essential Air 
Services program, which has ensured federal funding since airline 
deregulation to ensure that rural communities can continue to be 
included in the national aviation system. In the original House bill, 
some Members wanted to impose a local match provision, which would have 
required local communities to subsidize the federal government by 
paying to qualify for air service. Others, like myself, pointed out 
that doing this would kill air travel in small communities across more 
than 35 states.
  In my own district in West Virginia, this local match provision would 
have applied to Bluefield Airport, serving the Bluefield and Princeton 
areas. Thankfully, the House deleted the local match requirement on the 
floor to guarantee that rural communities continue to be included in 
the national aviation system.
  Unfortunately, the Republicans on the Conference Committee, who 
apparently don't care about maintaining a truly national air system, 
decided to reinsert the local match provision in secret, and to subject 
my rural West Virginia constituents to hardship.
  They also inserted other provisions in the dark of night that are not 
consistent with the House and Senate bills' provisions aimed at 
ensuring safety. The Republicans secretly made it possible for the Bush 
administration to privatize uniquely-skilled air traffic control jobs

[[Page 26463]]

at 69 airport across the country. It should also be noted that 11 of 
the airports on the Republicans' hit list for possible privatization 
are included among the 50 busiest towers in the country.
  Although our highly-skilled air traffic controllers guided 5,000 
planes to safety after one call from the Secretary of Transportation, 
on September 11, 2001 while our Nation was under attack, the 
Republicans think we should replace many of these skilled workers with 
companies whose only bottom line is pure profit.
  Then, because they knew the Conference Committee Democrats, like 
myself for instance, would object to their brand new bill, they didn't 
bother to properly hold meetings in accordance with the rules. Instead, 
we had to find out through the media that they drafted a sham 
Conference Report, which they all signed. As a result, this bill has 
gone nowhere since July.
  Now, amazingly, the Republicans come to the floor after this bill has 
lingered for months, and they say that we exaggerate the impact of 
their revisions. Then, they try to assure us that they have revised the 
bill again to eliminate the objectionable provisions that they added. 
And, they say we should just take their word for it and go ahead and 
pass the bill today, even though we haven't had meetings to review this 
bill that has supposedly been revised yet again without our 
involvement.
  This partisan hijacking of the bill to ruin rural air travel and 
increase profits at the expense of safety is grotesque. Didn't we learn 
anything at all about the importance of a reliable and safe national 
air travel system from September 11?
  The reauthorization of this bill offers us the opportunity to improve 
upon our current system while addressing areas of need. We should go 
back to work to accomplish that goal by finalizing a bipartisan bill 
that reflects the shared interests of the House and the Senate, and the 
American people. I urge Members to vote against the Rule. This bill 
should be sent back to the Conference, and conference meetings to work 
out a good bill should be held after all.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the FAA conference 
agreement. While the conference report does remove the air traffic 
control privatization language from the report, that action is 
completely inadequate. Because the Administration has been so outspoken 
about moving forward with its plans to privatize air traffic 
controllers in airports across the country, there must be a clear 
prohibition on any such privatization in this bill. One of the airports 
targeted by the Administration is in my district, the Hayward Executive 
Airport. I will not support a bill that fails to protect my community 
from the threat of privatization.
  Members of both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly to stop 
the privatization of our nation's air control towers through directive 
language. Both chambers also voted to require the Transportation 
Security Administration to establish mandatory guidelines for 
antiterrorism training for flight attendants. These and other important 
issues were simply overturned by Republican Congressional leaders and 
the White House--without even a perfunctory meeting of the FAA 
Conference Committee which is supposed to be in charge of revising the 
legislation.
  The Federal Aviation Administration declared air traffic control 
services a ``commercial activity'' presumably to avail air traffic 
safety to private market interests. This is a completely misguided 
approach to air traffic safety in light of the events of September 11. 
Congress must do all it can to ensure that the safety of air traffic 
remains in the skilled hands, and under the close scrutiny, of our 
government. It is as much a public safety concern as are police or 
firefighters and no one is advocating turning their jobs over to the 
private sector.
  The United States air traffic control system handles more than half 
of the world's air traffic cargo, and it is the safest in the world. 
The FAA air traffic controllers serve as the lynchpin of this system. 
These dedicated federal employees ensure the safety of nearly one 
million passengers every day. Their professionalism and skill was 
tested under uncertain circumstances on September 11, 2001. FAA air 
traffic controllers successfully landed 5,000 planes in two hours. They 
accomplished a feat that no one ever thought possible, and a task that 
no one wishes to repeat. The magnitude of that one accomplishment is 
testament to a system that works beyond anyone's comprehension.
  Our air traffic control system is the envy of the world. Other 
nations that have privatized their air traffic control systems have 
encountered unending difficulties and problems. Canada, Great Britain 
and Australia have experienced questionable safety standards, increased 
delays, financial bailouts from the government, and plummeting staff 
morale.
  Privatization of air traffic control is a big mistake and this 
conference report does nothing to prevent the Bush Administration from 
making the mistake anyway. We must learn from the lessons of other 
nations, and give credit to a system that has performed above and 
beyond expectations.
  I urge my colleagues to reject privatization of our nation's air 
traffic system and vote no on the FAA conference report.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the FAA Conference Report now under consideration.
  This bill contains billions of dollars in vital funding for America's 
airports and air traffic control system, which the Administration is 
insisting on holding hostage to a seriously flawed plan to privatize 
this nation's air traffic controllers.
  Decisions made behind closed doors by a handful of conferees have 
thwarted the will of both Houses of Congress and placed the flying 
public in grave danger, by allowing for privatization of our air 
traffic control system and eliminating requirements that flight 
attendants receive vital anti-terrorism training.
  As a representative from Long Island, New York, I have had the 
opportunity to meet many of the controllers who live in my district and 
who work at the nearby New York TRACON and New York Air Route Traffic 
Control Center. These dedicated public servants monitor nearly 2 
million flights each year, with only two concerns in mind: the safety 
of passengers and the efficiency of air travel in the region.
  We already know from the list of intended privatization sites 
misleadingly pulled from this bill that the Administration hopes to 
privatize one major airport on Long Island. We simply cannot begin down 
a road that would put profit above safety and cost-cutting above hiring 
the most qualified employees.
  We also must not abandon flight attendants, many of whom lost their 
lives on September 11, bravely fighting the terrorists who took over 
their planes. We must do everything we can to act on the lessons 
learned that terrible day, and provide all flight attendants with the 
crucial training they need to deal with any future terrorist threats 
aboard their planes. It defies logic that conferees stripped language 
from this bill that would have prepared flight attendants to serve as a 
line of defense in the event of a future attack.
  Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate passed fair, bipartisan FAA 
reauthorization bills by a combined vote of 512-8. I am deeply 
disappointed that Majority party conferees took the unprecedented step 
of ignoring the will of both chambers and all Democratic conferees.
  I am left with no choice but to oppose this flawed bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out against 
this conference report for H.R. 2115, Flight 100--Century of Aviation-
FAA Reauthorization Act. This rule waives all points of order against 
the conference report, including the rule that a conference must hold 
at least one public meeting before filing its report.
  Yesterday, the Republican Leadership after nearly 5-weeks of delay 
finally brought the rule to recommit the seriously flawed conference 
report on H.R. 2115. The House voted overwhelmingly to recommit the 
conference report, by a vote of 407-0. The new conference did not hold 
any public meeting and did not give Democratic Members of the 
conference any opportunity for input or to offer any amendments to the 
conference. In fact, Democratic Members of the conference were never 
notified of any action by the Republican conferees until after the 
conference was filed.
  The new report was filed less than 24 hours after it was recommitted 
to conference. Once again, the report was not signed by any Democratic 
conferees in either the House or the Senate.
  The new conference did not even address 3 of the 4 most controversial 
issues contained in the first conference report. It made only one 
change regarding the air traffic control matter. The only change to the 
original conference was to strike out the section of the bill (section 
230) that allowed for immediate privatization of 69 air traffic control 
towers. The Republican and the Administration will claim that striking 
out this section would simply reinstate current law and that it gives 
air traffic controllers the same status they had under the Clinton 
Administration. This is not the case.
  Under the Clinton Administration, controllers were considered 
``inherently governmental.'' In June of 2003, President Bush reversed 
that standing in an Executive Order and air traffic control was 
officially declared to be a ``commercial activity'' on February 6, 2003 
by the Department of Transportation FAIR Act list. This means that 
virtually any airport tower in the nation can be privatized by the FAA 
without any Congressional action or approval. This

[[Page 26464]]

is in spite of language that was contained in both the House and Senate 
passed versions of this bill which prohibited privatization of the air 
traffic control system.
  Furthermore, the new conference report makes no changes in the so 
called ``cabatoge'' issue allowing foreign airlines to carry cargo 
between cities in Alaska and other cities in the U.S., policies that 
have been used both for national security and competition. 
Additionally, the 2nd conference still makes the mandatory requirements 
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that TSA issue security and anti-
terrorism training guidelines for flight attendants discretionary (the 
mandatory language was in both the House and Senate bills). And the 
conference report does not delete the requirement for certain 
communities to pay a local share for essential air service. An 
amendment to the conference report to fix all of these concerns was 
offered in the Rules Committee last night but was defeated on a party 
line vote.
  I am also troubled that a provision I wrote in the House-passed bill 
has been deleted from the Conference Report. Right now, American pilots 
between the ages of 60 and 65 are forbidden to fly commercial 
airliners. This is despite the fact that these pilots are forced to 
pass physical and skills tests every six months. The reason for this is 
that the FAA feels that these pilots pose a risk to the flying public. 
However, foreign pilots from international airlines are allowed to fly 
in U.S. airspace. If these pilots are unsafe, they should not be 
flying. If they are safe, American pilots should be afforded the same 
opportunities. All my provisions did was to require the FAA to do a 
study on whether foreign pilots over the age of 60 are unsafe. This 
would give Congress necessary clarification and a scientific basis for 
this policy. The provision passed in the House Science Committee, but 
was struck out in Conference. This does not make sense to me.
  The aviation system in our country is far too critical to the safety 
and security of our nation and its people to be manipulated by 
irresponsible partisan politics. Members of the House and the Senate 
voted overwhelmingly to stop the privatization of our the nation's air 
control towers. Both Houses voted to require the TSA to establish 
mandatory guidelines for antiterrorism training for flight attendants. 
These and other important issues were simply overturned by the 
Republican Leadership in the House and the Senate and by the White 
House. Such actions are a dangerous precedent.
  I will vote ``no'' for this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. In its present form I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota moves to recommit the conference 
     report on the bill (H.R. 2115) to the committee of conference 
     with the following instructions to the managers on the part 
     of the House:
       (1) Insist that a meeting of the conferees take place 
     pursuant to clause 12 of Rule XXII.
       (2) Insist that section 624 (relating to transfer of 
     certain air traffic control functions prohibited) of the 
     Senate amendment to the bill be added at the end of subtitle 
     B of title II in the conference substitute recommended by the 
     committee of conference and be redesignated as section 230.
       (3) Disagree to section 408 (relating to EAS local 
     participation program) of the conference substitute.
       (4) Insist that in section 603 (relating to crew training) 
     of the conference substitute, in the matter proposed to be 
     inserted as section 44918(a)(4) of title 49, United States 
     Code, the phrase ``the Under Secretary may establish minimum 
     standards'' be changed to read ``the Under Secretary shall 
     establish minimum standards''.
       (5) Disagree to section 808 (relating to United States 
     presence in global air cargo industry) of the conference 
     substitute.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit is nondebatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on the question of adoption of the conference report, if ordered, 
and the motion to suspend the rules and agree to House Resolution 409 
previously postponed.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197, 
nays 219, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 591]

                               YEAS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--219

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley

[[Page 26465]]


     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Akin
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Case
     DeMint
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     McCollum
     McCotter
     Miller (NC)
     Pearce
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak
     Waxman
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1847

  Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut and Mr. LANGEVIN changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211, 
noes 207, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 592]

                               AYES--211

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Akin
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Case
     English
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     McCollum
     McCotter
     Miller (NC)
     Pearce
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak
     Waxman
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1857

  Mr. HOUGHTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________