[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4150-4153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           TREATING SMALL AIRPORTS WITH FAIRNESS ACT OF 2016

  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4549) to require the Transportation Security 
Administration to conduct security screening at certain airports, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4549

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Treating Small Airports with 
     Fairness Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. CONDUCT OF SECURITY SCREENING BY THE TRANSPORTATION 
                   SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AT CERTAIN AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Transportation 
     Security Administration shall provide for security screening 
     to be conducted by the Transportation Security Administration 
     at, and provide all necessary staff and equipment to, any 
     airport--
       (1) that lost commercial air service on or after January 1, 
     2013; and
       (2) the operator of which, following the loss described in 
     paragraph (1), submits to the Administrator--
       (A) a request for security screening to be conducted at 
     such airport by the Transportation Security Administration; 
     and
       (B) written confirmation of a commitment from a commercial 
     air carrier--
       (i) that such air carrier intends to resume commercial air 
     service at such airport; and
       (ii) to resume such service not later than the date that is 
     one year after the date of the submission of the request 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (b) Deadline.--Subject to the one-year limitation described 
     in subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii), the Administrator of the 
     Transportation Security Administration shall ensure that the 
     process of implementing security screening by the 
     Transportation Security Administration at an airport 
     described in subsection (a) is complete not later than the 
     later of--
       (1) the date that is 90 days after the date on which the 
     operator of such airport submits to the Administrator a 
     request for such screening under paragraph (2)(A) of such 
     subsection; or
       (2) the date on which the commercial air carrier that is 
     the subject of such a request intends to resume commercial 
     air service at such airport.
       (c) Effects on Other Airports.--The Administrator of the 
     Transportation Security Administration shall carry out this 
     section in a manner that does not negatively affect 
     operations at airports not described in this section that are 
     otherwise provided security screening conducted by the 
     Transportation Security Administration.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include any extraneous materials on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As a Representative, I love fighting for the little guy, battling the 
bureaucracy on behalf of those who can't. Today I am fighting for the 
little airports.
  I think that the people who are dependent on small airports in order 
to travel and conduct business deserve the same security that those at 
larger airports get. And this isn't just about security. It is about 
jobs and the economy.
  In the past 3 years, nearly 30 airports across the country have lost 
commercial service. This wreaks havoc on the local economy and, 
ultimately, the community. In at least six of these cases, airlines 
have reevaluated and sought to return at a later date.
  Unfortunately, in many cases, even if it has only been several 
months, TSA has already removed their resources from the airports and 
have refused to return. The irony is that many of these airports have 
simultaneously been awarded funding by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation in order to regain and promote commercial air service.
  While one Federal agency agrees to invest in getting the airport up 
and going, another Federal agency is refusing to provide security 
screening. This makes no sense from a budgetary standpoint and is 
simply unfair.
  These airports are located in important cities. For example, Del Rio 
is home to Laughlin Air Force Base, numerous DHS facilities, and a 
growing community that facilitates international trade between the U.S. 
and Mexico.
  Given the national and homeland security-related institutions 
serviced directly by the Del Rio airport and the potential boost to the 
economy, it only makes sense to provide basic screening.
  Del Rio, Texas, is not alone. This is playing out across the country 
from New Jersey to California. By screening these passengers at the 
point of origin, we are further decreasing wait times at our larger hub 
airports.
  The bill is a bipartisan effort and has passed out of the Homeland 
Security Committee with unanimous support. Equally bipartisan companion 
legislation with the exact same language has been included in the 
Senate's FAA reauthorization, which passed out of committee unanimously 
as well.
  We are all in agreement that this is an important step towards 
achieving economic and national security. I want to thank my fellow 
Members, Representatives Walden, DeFazio, Lummis, Kilmer, and Davis, 
who cosponsored this piece of legislation.
  I urge all Members to join me in supporting this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4549, the Treating Small 
Airports with Fairness Act of 2016.
  Under this act, TSA would be required to provide staffing and 
screening equipment to any airport that lost

[[Page 4151]]

commercial air service on or after January 1, 2013, if the operator 
submits a request to TSA together with a written commitment from a 
commercial air carrier that such carrier intends to resume service at 
such airport not later than 1 year after the date on which the request 
is submitted.
  It is my understanding that, without this legislation or alternative 
measures, should commercial service return to the affected airports, 
the passengers who depart the airport would fly unscreened to their 
destination and be subject to security screening upon arrival if they 
have to connect to another destination via commercial air flight.
  The potential universe of airports that are believed to be implicated 
by this legislation is over 20, but there are at least 6 airports that 
are expected to pursue Federal screening operations.

                              {time}  1500

  As a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, I believe 
that it is important that passengers undergo a security screening 
before boarding commercial flights.
  As we have heard from TSA and various media reports, this travel 
season is expected to be the busiest in many years. One of the factors 
contributing to the long wait times at airports across the Nation is 
the lack of adequate staffing.
  During consideration of this measure in committee, the committee 
approved an amendment offered by the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, to 
ensure that when TSA acts to implement this law and provides screening 
services to new airports, they do not do so at the expense of other 
airports in the system.
  If TSA does this right and manages its staffing resources in a 
thoughtful and holistic manner, there is no reason for other airports 
to be negatively impacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the principal author of this 
legislation, a gentleman who has been fighting for small communities 
and communities all over the country.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Hurd for his 
leadership on this issue. I want to thank as well the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), 
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for helping us out on this, 
and certainly Chairman Michael McCaul.
  This answer by the TSA makes no sense from a security standpoint and 
hurts our smaller communities that may go from time to time without air 
service but clamor for air service. If you are a big airport and you 
lose a carrier, you probably have several others there serving the 
people of that area.
  If you are a small airport and you have one carrier, as is the case 
in Klamath Falls, Oregon, in June of 2014, when SkyWest pulled out, 
they had no other carriers, so they immediately began to seek 
additional air service. The city of Klamath Falls acted diligently. 
They recruited a new partner, Peninsula Airways, in July of 2015, so 
like a year later they had somebody in line and everything was working 
out.
  They go to TSA, and TSA says: No, we are not coming back.
  Their answer was to reverse screen.
  I said: Well, what is that?
  Well, that means you board the 28- or 30-passenger airplane with all 
your luggage, everything else, and then you fly--in this case 236 miles 
north to Portland, Oregon, Oregon's largest city--then you deplane on 
the tarmac, and you come back through like you had just driven up.
  Well, that is an interesting way to provide security for the Nation's 
communities and airplanes because that means you have flown right up 
the entire length of Oregon, from the California border down here in 
Klamath Falls all the way to Portland.
  Now, let me put that in an East Coast perspective for you. That would 
be like boarding a plane in Raleigh-Durham International Airport down 
in Raleigh, North Carolina, and then you would fly all the way up to 
Reagan Washington National Airport, up to DCA here. Actually, we go 4 
miles farther in Oregon, but we will leave that aside for the moment, 
232 miles versus 236. Then you get off the airplane here at Reagan 
National, and then we will screen you. We will find out what you are 
carrying, what is in your bags, and then we will put you on a 
connecting flight.
  Does anybody think that is good security? Does anybody think that 
people who want to do us harm aren't going to figure that gaping hole 
out?
  Portland International Airport was willing to work with us, but it 
made no sense. So we pleaded with TSA: Can't you come back? You were 
here before. It won't take much.
  And they basically said no. And that is what brings us here today. 
For our Nation's security, for the economic security of our small 
communities, we need to pass this bipartisan legislation.
  On a side note, the Nation's only F-15 training unit is in Klamath 
Falls at Kingsley Airfield. So our F-15 pilots have to come out now, 
and rather than fly into Klamath Falls, they have to fly into an 
airport that is at least, well, on a bad day probably 2 hours over the 
mountains, and then come over. So we are paying all that extra 
transportation cost, we are paying hotels, everything else, delaying 
their access to training, and that doesn't make sense, either.
  So let's be safe and secure. Let's be smart and prudent. Let's pass 
this legislation and allow our communities to have the air service they 
need and our country to have the security that we demand. This is 
commonsense legislation that we need to pass. I thank both sides of the 
aisle for their great work on this with us. Together, we are going to 
do the right policy even when TSA wouldn't.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time and for his support of the bill. I thank the majority side also.
  I don't represent the area where this airport is located, but Greg 
Walden and I represent two of the largest districts, geographically 
speaking, in Congress. The problems that are created by the lack of air 
service to Klamath Falls, the gentleman has already well documented. It 
is about a 4-hour drive to Portland, which is the nearest place where 
you can get a variety of hubbed destinations out of there. Flying a 
plane into the Portland metropolitan area, twin-engine, fairly heavy 
plane with no screening and no security, defies common sense.
  Now, unfortunately, I was principal, after 9/11, with John Mica in 
creating TSA, and there are days when we have concerns and regrets, and 
this is certainly one of them. It was not our intent to create an 
agency that could dictate who could and couldn't have air service. That 
is not within TSA's scope of jurisdiction. This is outrageous that they 
would try to deny this.
  Remember, TSA, you can't lobby Congress. But I hear they have been 
lobbying in some phone calls, saying: this will cost $50 million; it 
will take away service from your airport, which is why the committee 
said they can't take it away.
  No, these are going to be part-time screeners. Klamath Falls has even 
offered to hire private screeners. TSA says no. TSA is giving away 
equipment, surplusing equipment that is still perfectly functional for 
an airport like Klamath Falls, so there is no cost involved there. At 
worst, they are going to have a few part-time screeners and they are 
going to have to move the surplus equipment there and plug it back in. 
This isn't going to cost millions of dollars.
  This is, plain and simple, a commonsense approach to how we will make 
our entire system safer and also provide what small cities need. 
Airports are a critical, critical factor in economic development and 
recruitment for small cities across the western United States. When you 
have a willing partner, a growing airline, PenAir, that has signed a 
commitment to come back in and provide service, as they do for some 
communities in my district, then it is not the place of the TSA to say, 
oh, no, hold it up, sorry, can't do

[[Page 4152]]

that. PenAir probably wouldn't even be willing to provide the service 
without screening because what would their liability be if they are 
flying unscreened passengers on a commercial airline? I am not even 
sure what the FAA would have to say about that.
  This is absolutely outrageous, and it is just absurd that Congress 
has to step in and act to rectify this misguided step by the TSA, but 
by passing this bill, we will. I recommend this bill to my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues from Texas and 
across the Nation who, as I have discovered with this bill, have 
similar problems. In my particular case, it is the city of Salina, 
Kansas, which is located only 100 miles from the closest hub, and it 
has long provided valuable air service either to Kansas City or a 
little bit farther to Denver. Due to circumstances beyond Salina's 
control, just in January their air carrier stopped providing flights 
from Salina, and TSA obviously withdrew screening services.
  However, just a few weeks later--just a few weeks later--the airport 
and Great Lakes Airlines reached an exciting agreement to restore air 
service to and from Salina. As we have heard the same story, the 
airport sent a request to TSA asking them to reinstate screening 
services--again, this is just a few weeks after they had ended the 
services--to begin these much-needed flights.
  Shortly thereafter, without adequate explanation, TSA, of course as 
we have heard, denied the request. I soon learned from other airports, 
other communities across America that I wasn't alone. Other airports 
located predominantly in rural communities, in nearly identical 
situations, were also being denied screening services.
  Perhaps most troubling to me--and I heard a lot of troubling 
testimony here--was that no credible reason was given for declining the 
screening services, again, just a few weeks after they were still 
screening flights in Salina, Kansas, saying we can't do it now.
  I believe our rural communities in Kansas and others across the 
Nation are tired of being left with the short end of the stick and 
Washington bureaucrats thinking they can get away with it.
  In response to these lame excuses, I urge passage of our TSA Fairness 
Act today. This legislation will reverse the denial by TSA and ensure 
they stop discriminating against rural communities like Salina, Kansas. 
The service agreement they have reached with Great Lakes Airlines will 
support our region's continued economic growth. As the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access, I understand 
how important reliable air service is for Salina, Kansas, and our 
region. It is a simple fix with this bill.
  I appreciate my colleague from Texas carrying this on the floor. It 
will ensure TSA continues to fulfill its mission, which is to ensure 
freedom of movement for people and commerce, and again for Salina and 
other rural communities across Kansas.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. 
I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the sponsor of this 
bill, as well as the numbers of individuals who came to the floor.
  I chaired the Subcommittee on Transportation Security of the 
Committee on Homeland Security some years ago and happily remain on 
that committee because I do think it has a crucial and important role. 
I do believe in your cause and in this legislation.
  We like to think of rural America as being tranquil areas. But in 
light of the recent incident in Brussels, many of us who are students 
of aviation security are well aware of a number of elements of 
weakness, period. Whether or not it is the perimeters of the airports 
or ingress and egress of airports, whether or not it is the access of 
employees, of which we make no general indictment of the hardworking 
individuals who work at airports, but we know that the ingress and 
egress in many of our large airports still gives us pause, and now, 
obviously, the conspicuous utilization of the open space where the 
terrorists did their havoc in Brussels.
  We would hope that would not be the case in America, and as well in 
rural airports. But certainly if a commercial airline comes back to a 
rural community, they need appropriate security. As we grow in 
developing our security matrix, they may need security that expands 
into the outer areas, depending upon risks. But the one thing we know 
is that they need to fall in the category of what we said after 9/11: a 
professional, well-trained security team, the Transportation Security 
Administration and TSO.
  I have a lot of confidence, as I have had in previous TSA 
Administrators, in their understanding of the seriousness of their 
responsibilities. I have the same kind of confidence in the admiral, 
along with Secretary Johnson, that they understand that we are the 
front line on securing this Nation. So the airports that have a 
commercial airline signed, agreed, and sealed need that kind of 
security. We must leave no stone unturned as it relates to airport 
security.
  Now, obviously, with no security mechanism, it makes it difficult to 
have a commercial structure, but more importantly, it opens up the 
airport system to get into, if you will, the system of travel and, not 
knowing how terrorists think, to start at one point that is more 
vulnerable than others and wind up in the Nation's busiest airports.

                              {time}  1515

  So I support this legislation. I look forward to determining and 
encouraging funding for this expansion. Obviously, that would be the 
concern--certainly, in the appropriations process--and I can only 
imagine that there are those of us who are committed in a bipartisan 
way to making sure that every aspect of the Nation's travel system, 
whether you are going from rail to bus to plane or in any other manner, 
is, of course, protected.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank Mr. 
Payne and Mr. Hurd for their leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and a 
former chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and 
Infrastructure Protection, I rise in support of H.R. 4549, ``Treating 
Small Airports with Fairness Act of 2016'' which requires the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to restore security and 
screening services to any airport that lost air services after January 
1, 2013 but has a guarantee from a commercial airline to resume 
service.
  A number of airports in rural parts of the United States have lost 
commercial air service in the past years.
  Those living in rural areas without easy access by highway to other 
airports have lost a vital travel option.
  Once an airport receives a commitment from an airline to begin or re-
establish service it at an airport, it also must get TSA to re-
establish passenger and baggage screening, but in some cases TSA denies 
the airport's request to re-establish security screening.
  For example, TSA at Crater Lake-Klamath Regional Airport in southern 
Oregon denied the airport's request to restore security screening, 
citing the unpredictability of air service in the region and the 
inability to maintain consistent passenger loads.
  Without TSA security screenings, airports must make alternative 
security arrangements, such as having security screening of passengers 
and baggage occur once the flight arrives at a large connection 
airport.
  Under H.R. 4549, TSA must begin security screenings at an airport 
either 90 days after a request for screening is made by the airport or 
when commercial air service commences, whichever is later.
  This requirement would apply only to airports where the airline has 
said it will resume services within a year of when the airport has 
requested the restoration of TSA screening.
  Small cities in 25 States have lost commercial air service and the 
local economy of the cities involved suffers.
  The loss of airports in these small communities results in using 
small propeller-powered planes that charge fares much higher 
proportionately than those of conventional airlines.

[[Page 4153]]

  Closing airports in these cities results in lost tourist dollars and 
airport revenue which benefits the community tremendously.
  H.R. 4549 directs TSA to restore security and screening services to 
airports that lost air service and have a guarantee from a commercial 
airline to resume service.
  H.R. 4549 requires restoration of TSA screening to a limited number 
of airports that have a guarantee from a commercial airline including: 
Klamath Falls, Oregon; Del Rio, Texas; Sheridan, Wyoming; and Salina, 
Kansas.
  I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4549.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the bipartisan nature 
in which this measure comes to the floor today. I thank Members for 
their support of this measure, and I encourage support for this 
legislation. Enactment will contribute to strengthening the aviation 
security system by ensuring that passengers undergo screening before 
boarding commercial flights.
  I had the pleasure of being in south Texas in the last week, and I 
flew out of McAllen, Texas. I see the nature and size of these 
airports; but, nevertheless, they should have the same support as the 
larger airports.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a good day. Despite the circus atmosphere that 
we often see in Washington, D.C., we are strengthening national 
security and improving the communities across our Nation, and we are 
doing this in a bipartisan effort.
  I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and, 
again, urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4549.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following cost estimate from 
the Congressional Budget Office regarding H.R. 4549.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 2016.
     Hon. Michael McCaul,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4549, the 
     Treating Small Airports with Fairness Act of 2016.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan 
     Carroll.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Keith Hall.
       Enclosure.
     H.R. 4549--Treating Small Airports with Fairness Act of 2016
       Summary: Under current law, the Transportation Security 
     Administration (TSA) is required to screen passengers and 
     property on scheduled commercial flights and some charter 
     flights involving aircraft that meet certain capacity-related 
     specifications. Broadly speaking, the agency oversees or 
     conducts screening at most airports with commercial service; 
     for all other airports, the agency uses a risk-based 
     methodology for determining appropriate policies for 
     security-related screening of passengers and cargo.
       H.R. 4549 would require TSA to provide screening services 
     at certain airports that lost or experienced a disruption in 
     service by commercial airlines after January 1, 2013. Based 
     on information from the agency, CBO estimates that 
     implementing the bill would cost $33 million over the 2017-
     2021 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
       Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply because enacting H.R. 
     4549 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO 
     estimates that enacting the bill would not increase net 
     direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
     consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
       H.R. 4549 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
     impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary effect of H.R. 4549 is shown in the following 
     table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
     function 400 (transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2017       2018       2019       2020       2021    2017-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated Authorization Level.................          8          5          6          7          8         34
Estimated Outlays.............................          6          6          6          7          8         33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Basis of estimate: for this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
     4549 will be enacted before the start of fiscal year 2017 and 
     the estimated amounts will be appropriated each year.
       At the request of the operator of an airport that lost 
     commercial air service after January 1, 2013, H.R. 4549 would 
     require TSA to provide screening services at that airport. 
     According to the agency, 22 airports could become eligible 
     for federal screening services under the bill, several of 
     which have agreements with commercial airlines to resume 
     service in the near future. TSA has denied requests from some 
     of those airports to resume screening services in the recent 
     past and CBO expects that under current law the agency is 
     unlikely to provide screening services at such airports in 
     the near future. As a result, CBO estimates that implementing 
     H.R. 4549 would increase the cost of TSA's aviation security 
     programs.
       Based on information from TSA about average screening-
     related costs for airports with characteristics similar to 
     those that would be affected by the bill, CBO estimates that 
     increased spending for aviation-related screening would total 
     $6 million in 2017 and $33 million over the 2017-2021 period. 
     That amount includes roughly $9 million in one-time costs to 
     acquire and install screening-related equipment and $24 
     million in ongoing personnel costs and other expenses. CBO 
     expects that initially about one-third of the airports that 
     would be eligible for screening services from TSA under the 
     bill--particularly those with agreements from air carriers to 
     resume commercial service--would apply for such services, 
     with that number doubling by 2021.
       CBO also estimates that implementing H.R. 4549 would not 
     affect security-related fees collected by TSA to offset a 
     portion of the agency's screening costs. Such fees are 
     collected by air carriers from passengers when tickets for 
     commercial flights are sold--whether or not TSA performs 
     security screening--and would be unaffected by this 
     legislation.
       Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
       Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO 
     estimates that enacting H.R. 4549 would not increase net 
     direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
     consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
       Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4549 
     contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
     defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
     tribal governments.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact 
     on state, local, and tribal governments: Jon Sperl; Impact on 
     the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
       Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4549, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________