Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
BE PRESERVED UNDER THIS ACT
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON A
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST.
I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
WE HAVE REVIEWED THE AMENDMENT
AND ARE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
IT WILL -- PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT VINTAGE AIRPLANES.
I KNOW I REPRESENT ONE OF THE
LARGEST ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL
AVIATION ENTHUSIASTS FEELS THIS
IS VERY IMPORTANT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH YOU
TO PERFECT THE AMENDMENT.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
F.A.A. AND OTHERS ALSO SUPPORT
ITS INTENT.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I YIELD.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL
ONLY AGREE TO THIS AMENDMENT IF
MR. GRAVES AGREES THAT THIS IS
HIS LAST AMENDMENT ON THIS
LEGISLATION.
I KNOW HE IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE AND I
KNOW IS AN ACTIVE MEMBER ON THE
COMMITTEE AND A PILOT BUT NO ONE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS MANY
AMENDMENTS AS HE HAS AND UNLESS
HE AGREES THIS IS HIS LAST
AMENDMENT, I WOULD HAVE TO
OPPOSE IT.
RECLAIMING MY TIME,
IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I CAN
GUARANTEE YOU THIS IS MY LAST
AMENDMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR
BILL AT LEAST.
CHAIRMAN AND I
FINALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING.
I WOULD CLOSE WITH
THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME AND URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT IT.
DOES ANY MEMBER SEEK
TIME IN OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE, THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MISSOURI, MR.
GRAVES.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT AND THE AMENDMENT
IS AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 27 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-46.
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW MEXICO SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 27
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT NUMBER
112-46 OFFERED BY MR. PEARCE OF
NEW MEXICO.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW MEXICO, MR. PEARCE AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL HAVE
FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
PEARCE.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH
TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
RECOGNIZED.
THIS AMENDMENT IS AT
THE REQUEST OF THE LOCAL COUNTY
IN NEW MEXICO.
THEY HAVE LAND WHICH ALTERNATES
WITH A PRIVATE INVESTOR AND
SIMPLY ASKING THAT 7.35 ACRES BE
GIVEN TO THEM AND THEY WOULD
PRIVATE COMPANY.
AND THEN THE PRIVATE COMPANY
WOULD ALSO GIVE A ROAD TO THE
AIRPORT THAT THEY ARE DESIRING.
THIS LAND SWAP IS BY MUTUAL
AGREEMENT OF ALL PARTIES
CONCERNED.
THE F.A.A. HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO
THE TRANSACTION.
THE APPRAISED VALUE IS SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT, BUT THE DEVELOPING
GROUP IS OFFERING TO PAY FOR A
ROAD IN AN EQUAL AMOUNT TO WHERE
THE TWO AMOUNTS WOULD BE EQUAL
SO THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE
AND I WOULD CONFIRM TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE THAT
THIS IS MY LAST AMENDMENT ALSO,
IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO GET
PEOPLE TO AGREE TO IT.
AND WITH THAT, I -- I WOULD
YIELD.
WE REVIEWED YOUR
AMENDMENT AND FEEL THAT IT IS A
REASONABLE AND IMPORTANT
AMENDMENT AND SUPPORT IT AND
URGE A YES VOTE ON YOUR
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
WOULD RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RISE?
OPPOSITION.
RECOGNIZED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, -- MR.
CHAIRMAN, I YIELD MYSELF SUCH
TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE SPONSOR OF
THE AMENDMENT, FIRST I WANT TO
READ THROUGH THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS A
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK.
UNDER CLAUSE 9 OF RULE 21, A
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK IS DEFINED
AS A PROVISION INCLUDED AT THE
OF REQUEST OF A MEMBER,
AUTHORIZING OR RECOMMENDING
SPENDING AUTHORITY FOR AN ENTITY
OR TARGETED TO A SPECIFIC
LOCALITY OR CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT.
THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US
EARMARK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW MEXICO IS
SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING THE
PROVISION.
IN ADDITION THE AMENDMENT
AUTHORIZES SPENDING AUTHORITY
FOR COUNTIES IN NEW MEXICO,
SUBSECTION B-2 STATES, ANY
AMOUNT OF MONEY RECEIVED BY THE
COUNTY FOR CONVEYANCE WHICH
CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES A COUNTY
RECEIVE FUNDING PURSUANT TO THIS
PROVISION.
THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT
QUALIFIES AS A CONGRESSIONAL
EARMARK UNDER CLAUSE 9 OF RULE
21.
MOREOVER, UNDER CLAUSE 17 OF
RULE 22, THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
REGARDING MEMBERS' CODE OF
CONDUCT, A MEMBER WHO REQUESTED
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK, MUST
PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO
THE CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER
CERTIFYING THAT NOT AS A MEMBER
NOR SPOUSE HAS A FINANCIAL
INTEREST IN THE EARMARK.
I DON'T QUESTION THAT AT ALL
BUT I'M JUST SAYING WHAT THE
RULES ARE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT
THE RULE WEIGHS ALL POINTS OF
ORDER AGAINST THE AMENDMENT,
HOWEVER IS THERE ANY WAY TO
ENSURE THAT THE JUMP IN NEW
MEXICO FILES THE APPROPRIATE
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
CERTIFICATION WITH THE COMMITTEE
ON T.N.I. REQUIRED UNDER CLAUSE
17 OF RULE 22?
THESE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
WERE INCLUDED IN THE HOUSE RULES
UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY,
THEY'VE SERVED THE HOUSE WELL
AND I'D LIKE TO SHARE -- ENSURE
MERELY WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO
HERE IS ENSURE THAT THE SUNSHINE
PROVISIONS CONTINUE TO BE THE
STANDARD OF THE HOUSE.
I'D YIELD.
YES, SIR.
ACTUALLY SINCE THERE'S NO MONEY
ACTUALLY CHANGING HANDS THERE'S
NOT ANY VALUE CHANGING HANDS.
IT APPEARS THAT THE RULE THAT
THE GENTLEMAN REFERS TO IS NOT
INVOKED.
I AM READING CLAUSE 9, SECTION E
WHICH SAYS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
CLAUSE, THE TERM CONGRESSIONAL
EARMARK MEANS A PROVISION REPORT
LANGUAGE INCLUDED PRIMARY TO THE
REQUEST OF A MEMBER PROVIDING
AUTHORIZING, RECOMMENDING A
SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF DISCRETIONARY
BUDGET AUTHORITY WHICH THIS DOES
NOT DO, CREDIT AUTHORITY WHICH
THIS DOES NOT DO OR OTHER
SPENDING AUTHORITY WHICH THIS
DOES NOT DO FOR A CONTRACT WHICH
THIS DOES NOT DO, A LOAN WHICH
THIS DOES NOT DO, LOAN GUARANTEE
WHICH THIS DOES NOT DO, GRANTS
WHICH THIS DOES NOT DO, LOAN
AUTHORITY WHICH THIS DOES NOT
DO, EXPENDITURE WITH NO RIFT TO
AN ENTITY OR TARGETED TO A
SPECIFIC STATE, LOCALITY OR
DISTRICT.
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S LAST SENTENCE OF
HIS AMENDMENT SAYS, ANY AMOUNT
RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY FOR THE
CONVEYANCE SHALL BE USED BY THE
COUNTY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT,
IMPROVEMENT, OPERATION OR
MAINTENANCE OF THE AIRPORT.
SO IT DOES SEEM THERE'S SOME
TRANSFER OF VALUE HERE OR SOME
MONETARY, IF NOT MONETARY,
THERE'S SOME VALUE OF SOME SORT
THAT'S BEING CON VADE TO THE
COUNTY.
IF I COULD YIELD
MYSELF TIME OR CLAIM TIME.
ON MY TIME.
THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE
INVOLVED ARE EQUIVALENT.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
SO I THINK THAT'S JUST CLEARING
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL.
IT'S NOT LIKE ANYTHING -- ANY
VALUE IS MOVING EITHER DIRECTION
OR THE OWE OTHER.
THAT HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED BY THE
APPRAISALS AND THERE IS AN
EQUIVALENT DIFFERENCE IN LAND
WITHIN THE COMPANY WHO IS GIVING
UP LAND AT THE REQUEST OF THE
LOCAL COUNTY, HAS AGREED TO PAVE
THE ROAD ON THE AIRPORT FOR THE
COUNTIES THAT WOULD MAKE UP THE
DIFFERENCE AND THAT VALUE HAS
BEEN ASCERTAINED ALSO TO BE IN
THE AMOUNT OF ABOUT $143,830 TO
MAKE THE TWO TRANSACTIONS.
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
WHAT'S THE VALUE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS GETTING HERE?
IN OUR VIEW THERE IS
NO VALUE LOST OR GAINED EITHER
DIRECTION.
EXCEPT TOWARD THE
COUNTY.
NO.
THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE COUNTY,
NO LOSS, NO GAIN TO THE COUNTY.
THERE ARE SEVEN ACRES THAT ARE
UP AGAINST THE COUNTY.
THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO ANYTHING
WITH THE AIRPORT ON THAT SIDE,
THEY'RE SIMPLY ASKING THAT THESE
TRIANGULAR SHAPES BE EXCHANGED
OUT SO THAT THERE IS A STRIP OF
LAND THAT THEY CAN DEVELOP.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN VALUE
TO EITHER THE COUNTY OR TO THE
COMPANY.
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
I RAISE THESE QUESTIONS, MR.
CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
WHAT LOOKS LIKE AN EARMARK,
WALKS LIKE AN EMARK, SMELLS LIKE
AN EMARK MUST BE AN EARMARK.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW MEXICO IS
THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE POINTS THAT THE
RANKING MEMBER HAS BROUGHT UP.
AND OF COURSE I SHARE HIS
EARMARKS.
WE WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING WHICH
EITHER COMPROMISED HIS VALUES
CONCERNING EARMARKS NOR MINE.
WE FEEL LIKE THAT THE ENTIRE
TRANSACTION IS TRANSPARENT, IT'S
ONE WHICH WAS REQUESTED BY THE
LOCAL COUNTY AT THE EXPENSE OF
THE LOCAL COMMUNITY OR AT THE
LOCAL COMPANY AND SO TO ME THE
RULES COMMITTEE HAS SAID THAT
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE MADE IN
ORDER, THAT IT DID NOT OFFEND
ANY PROVISION OF THE RULES OF
THIS HOUSE NOR DID IT OFFEND ANY
OF THE GERMANE REGARDING THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
SO WE GLADLY PURSUE THIS AND
WOULD REQUEST A YES VOTE FOR
AMENDMENT NUMBER 13 TO H.R. 658.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK
THE YEAS AND NAYS.
THE YEAS AND NAYS
HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.
DO YOU REQUEST A RECORDED VOTE?
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE 18,
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW MEXICO, MR.
PEARCE, WILL BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 28 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-46.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 29 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-46.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 29
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-46
OFFERED BY MR. SCHIFF OF
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 189, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. SCHIFF, AND
A MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE
AMENDMENT THAT I'M OFFERING
ALONG WITH MY SOUTHERN
SHERMAN AND MR. BERMAN.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW
AIRPORTS THAT NEED SPECIFIC --
MEET SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS,
AIRPORTS THAT ALREADY HAVE AT
LEAST A PARTIAL CUR KNEW EFFECT
BEFORE THE 1990 NOISE AND
CONTROL ACT, TO IMPLEMENT
MANDATORY NIGHTTIME CURFEWS.
THE AMENDMENT DEFINES A
NIGHTTIME CURFEW AS BETWEEN
10:00 PRIME MINISTER AND 7:00
A.M. AND AFFECTS ONLY TWO SMALL
AIRPORTS THAT HAVE PARTIAL
CURFEW -- CURFEW BEFORE THE
PASSAGE OF ANCA.
IT DOES NOT OPEN THE DOORS TO
ANY FURTHER EXEMPTIONS FROM
ENCA.
IT INTENDED FOR THE STATUTE TO
PERMIT AIRPORTS TO OBTAIN NOISE
RESTRICTIONS IF THEY MET CERTAIN
AT THE TIME CONGRESS EXEMPTED
SEVERAL AIRPORTS FOR THE LAW'S
REQUIREMENT OF NEW NOISE RULES
IF THEY HAD PRE-EXISTING NOISE
RULES IN EFFECT TO DURESS --
ADDRESS LOCAL NOISE PROBLEMS.
BOTH AIRPORTS IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA THAT WOULD BE
AFFECTED BY THIS AMENDMENT HAVE
A LONG HISTORY OF CURFEWS AND
WERE UNFORTUNATELY LEFT OUT OF
THE GRANDFATHER PROVISION OF
ANCAA.
OUR AMENDMENT WOULD CORRECT THIS
INEQUITY AND PUT THOSE AIRPORTS
ON THE SAME FOOTING AS OWES
AIRPORTS WHO HAD CURFEWS BEFORE
ANCA'S PASSAGE.
ONE OF THE AIRPORTS AFFECTED,
BOB HOPE AIRPORT, WAS ONE OF THE
FIRST AIRPORTS IN THE COUNTRY TO
IMPOSE A CURFEW.
THE VAN EYES AIRPORT HALLS A
PARTIAL CURFEW.
THE AMENDMENT THEREFORE CORRECTS
THE OMISSION OF NOT PROVIDING
CURFEWING TO THESE AIRPORTS
SINCE THEY ALREADY HAD A FULL OR
PARTIAL CURFEW IN EFFECT BEFORE
1990.
THIS WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL
AIRPORTS THEMSELVES AND HAS THE
FULL SUPPORT OF THE LOCAL
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION.
OPPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT
CONTEND THERE'S ALREADY AN
ESTABLISHED PROCESS TO CONSIDER
CURFEW.
HOWEVER, THE PROCESS WAS
DESIGNED TO BE SO DIFFICULT THAT
IN THE DECADES SINCE IT WAS
ESTABLISHED BY THE F.A.A., ONLY
ONE AIRPORT IN THE NATION HAS
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED AN
APPLICATION.
BOB HOPE AIRPORT, AND THEN IT
WAS SUMMARILY TURNED DOWN.
AFTER SPENDING $7 MILLION AND
NINE YEARS OF EFFORT, THE F.A.A.
REJECTED BOB HOPE'S REQUEST
CONTENDING THAT THE SMALL NUMBER
OF FLIGHTS IMPACTED BY THE
CURFEW WOULD IMPOSE TOO GREAT A
STRAIN ON THE COUNTRY'S AVIATION
SYSTEM AND TOO GREAT A COST ON
USERS.
IN REALITY THE F.A.A. APPROACHED
THIS PROCESS IN REVERSE,
BEGINNING WITH A CONCLUSION
WHICH TO REACH AND WORKING
RESULT.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
MY COLLEAGUES UNDERSTAND THIS
AMENDMENT WILL HAVE --
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT THIS
AMENDMENT WILL HAVE ON AVIATION
IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON
COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS, COMMERCIAL
AIRLINES DO NOT OPERATE OUT OF
VANEYES AND THEY ALREADY OCCUR.
ABOUT NINE FLIGHTS EACH NIGHT
ARE EXPECTED TO BE AFFECTED.
BECAUSE OF THE F.A.A.'S
DISMISSIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD
LEGITIMATE LOCAL CONCERNS, IT IS
CLEAR TO US THAT THE ONLY WAY TO
PROVIDE RELIEF TO THE RESIDENTS
IN OUR COMMUNITY IS THROUGH
LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
FOR THIS REASON, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
STRONGLY URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
IT WILL CORRECT AN OMISSION IN
THE AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL ACT,
LOCAL PROBLEMS REQUIRE LOCAL
SOLUTIONS, NOT SOLUTIONS IMPOSED
BY A FEDERAL AGENCY WITH A
PREDETERMINED AGENDA AND I
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA RISE?
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I'VE DONE MY BEST TO
MEET WITH SOME OF THE AFFECTED
PARTIES HERE AND I HAVE THE
GREATEST RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO
HAVE BROUGHT THIS PROPOSAL
FORWARD, TALKED TO MR. SCHIFF,
MR. BERMAN AND OTHERS.
THEY HAVE A GOOD INTENTION, THEY
WANT TO PROTECT THE AIRPORTS,
THE CONSTITUENTS THAT THEY
REPRESENT.
HOWEVER WHAT THEY PROPOSE IS --
AND AGAIN I HAD TO LOOK AT THIS
VERY CAREFULLY TO SEE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT THEY
PROPOSED AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT
ALL OF US.
PRIOR TO 1990, I THINK THAT'S
WHERE HE WANTS TO TAKE US BACK
TO, WE DIDN'T HAVE A REGULATION,
THE STANDARD AIRPORT NOISE
CONTROL FEDERAL LAW.
CONGRESS ENACTED A LAW AND THEY
DID THIS BECAUSE WE GET INTO THE
SITUATION ANY AIRPORT COULD
IMPOSE VARIOUS SITE RESTRICTIONS
AND WHAT DO YOU IS START CLOSING
DOWN THE NATIONAL SYSTEM BECAUSE
AGAIN YOU HAVE NO CONSISTENT
REGULATION AND WE SET UP A
PROCEDURE IN THAT LAW.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT BOB HOPE
WAS -- HAD APPLIED, SPENT MONEY
AND THEN WAS DENIED, VANEYES HAS
NEVER APPLIED AND BOB HOPE CAN
GO BACK AND APPLY.
IF WE OPEN THIS UP AND START
TAKING AIRPORT BY AIRPORT AND
GRANTING CERTAIN LEVELS OF
ACTIVITY IN TIME, WE START
DESTROYING A NATIONAL AVIATION
SYSTEM.
SO THAT'S WHY WE PUT THE ACT IN
PLACE, IT HAS A MANNER IN WHICH
TO PROCEED.
NOW, MAYBE -- AND I'M GLAD THIS
CAME UP BECAUSE MAYBE IT IS AN
ACT THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT -- I
DON'T WANT COMMUNITIES TO HAVE
TO SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY
TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OR
SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF TIME.
MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT
AMENDING THE AIRPORT NOISE
CONTROL ACT OF 1990 TO BE FAIR
TO COMMUNITIES.
BUT I'M TELLING YOU, IF WE OPEN
THIS DOOR THEN WE HAVE A
PROBLEM.
SO TO COME TO CONGRESS AND ASK
FOR THIS EXEMPTION AT THIS POINT
ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE AVIATION
SYSTEM AND MY RESPONSIBILITY TO,
AGAIN, EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTES
TO OUR NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM,
I CAN'T CONCUR -- AND I HAVE TO
TIME.
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
I THANK THE CHAIRMAN
AND APPRECIATE THE TIME HE SPENT
TO DISCUSS THIS WITH US.
I WOULD MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS
BEFORE I YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE.
THIS WILL ONLY RESTORE AN
HAD THERE HAD BEEN AN EXEMPTION
EACH OF THE AIRPORTS THAT HAD A
PROBLEM.
IT DOESN'T CREATE A PRECEDENT
THAT WILL DESTROY THE SYSTEM.
WHAT IT WILL SAY THAT ALL
AIRPORTS SHOULD BE TREATED THE
SAME WAY.
AND FURTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE
MINIMAL IMPACT IT WILL HAVE,
BOTH AIRPORTS SUPPORT THIS AND
LAX ALSO SUPPORTS THIS, SO THE
OTHER MAJOR AIRPORT THAT WOULD
BE IMPACTED SUPPORTS THIS AS
WELL.
THERE IS UNIFORMITY WITHIN THE
AIRPORTS IN OUR REGION AND I
YIELD 1 1/2 MINUTES TO MY
COLLEAGUE, MR. SHERMAN.
GENTLEMAN HAS 30
SECONDS REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
I REPRESENT BOTH
AIRPORTS IN QUESTION.
THIS IS A PRINCIPLED AMENDMENT
THAT DEALS WITH ALL AIRPORTS
THAT HAD CURFEWS IN EFFECT IN
1990.
TO SAY THAT BURBANK SHOULD
APPEAL HAVING SPENT $90 MILLION
IS NOT A SUFFICIENT ANSWER AND
TO SAY VAN NYS HAS SPENT ON A
PROCESS IS NOT AN ANSWER.
THE ANSWER IS THAT IT DOESN'T
COST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A
PENNY AND ALLOWS THE L.A. AREA
TO DO WHAT EVERY STAKE HOLDER IN
THE AREA WANTS TO DO.
THE HARSH HAND OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT PREVENT
LOCAL CONTROL IN THIS AREA.
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
HOW MUCH TIME IS
REMAINING?
GENTLEMAN HAS TWO
MINUTES REMAINING.
I YIELD MYSELF THE
BALANCE OF THE TIME.
AGAIN, I TRY TO WORK WITH
MEMBERS THAT HAVE PROBLEMS.
UNFORTUNATELY, AGAIN AND
ANALYZING THIS, THE IDEA OF
STEWARDSHIP OF THE COUNTRY AT
STAKE AND OUR NATIONAL AVIATION
SYSTEM AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
SET PRECEDENT THAT WOULD
ENCOURAGE OTHER LOCALITIES TO
SEEK CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION
TO OVERRIDE F.A.A.'S DECISIONS
OR AVOID THE PROCESS ALL
TOGETHER.
WE COULD BE HERE ALL THE TIME
DOING THIS.
THIS WOULD BE A PATCHWORK QUILT
OF LOCAL REGULATIONS THAT WOULD
WORK AGAINST THE MAINTENANCE OF
SYSTEM.
WE CAN START TAKING IT APART
PIECE BY PIECE AND THAT WAS
EXACTLY THE CONCERNS THAT LED TO
THE PASSAGE OF THE LAW.
NOW IF IT NEEDS AMENDING, I'LL
WORK WITH THEM.
I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS AND
PROBLEM.
AND IT IS EDUCATIONAL TO LEARN
OF THIS $9 MILLION THEY HAD TO
SPEND TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS
AND THEN HAVE IT DENIED.
BUT I CAN'T IN GOOD FAITH AND
THE NATION AND THE AVIATION
SYSTEM, SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT
AT THIS TIME.
AND HAVE TO OPPOSE IT BECAUSE
THE PATCHWORK AND THE QUILT WORK
WE WOULD GET IN OUR COMMITTEE.
AGAIN, HAVING CONCERNS, BUT I
STILL REMAIN IN OPPOSITION AND
YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS NOW ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR.
SCHIFF.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR THE
NOES HAVE IT AND THE AMENDMENT
IS NOT AGREED TO IT.
I REQUEST THE YEAS
AND NAYS.
THE GENTLEMAN REQUEST
A RECORDED VOTE?
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6, RULE 18,
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR.
SCHIFF, WILL BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 30.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM UTAH SEEK
RECOGNITION?
AMENDMENT NUMBER 30
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-46
OFFERED BY MR. MATHESON OF UTAH.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
UTAH, MR. MATHESON AND A MEMBER
OPPOSED EACH WILL CONTROL FIVE
MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM UTAH.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I OFFER THIS BIPARTISAN
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MYSELF AND
MR. PEARCE OF NEW MEXICO.
OVER HISTORY, AT TIMES, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS GIVEN
LAND TO VARIOUS AIRPORT
AUTHORITIES.
IT COULD BE A CITY, COUNTY OR
STATE WITH A REVERTER CLAUSE IF
THE LAND IS NO LONGER USED FOR
THE PURPOSE IT WAS GIVEN OR SOLD
TO THAT AIRPORT.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE IGNORE
THAT CLAUSE, BUT THERE ARE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THERE ARE
OTHER USES.
SO OUR AMENDMENT SAYS AS LONG AS
THIS LAND IS CONTINUED TO BE
USED FOR AIRPORT PURPOSES, THE
REVERTER CLAUSE -- THAT THE
F.A.A. HAS THE ABILITY TO IGNORE
THE REVERTER CLAUSE OR ADJUST
THE REVERTER CLAUSE TO ALLOW
THIS LAND TO BE COVENTED TO BE
USED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER THAN
WAS USED BEFORE.
IT EXISTS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF
THE COUNTRY AND WAS HANGING OUT
FOR A FEW YEARS IN OUR
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AND WE
FOUND A WAY TO ADDRESS THIS
WHERE I BELIEVE THESE
NONCONTROVERSIAL ISSUES CHANGING
IT BO INTO A DIFFERENT TYPE OF
USE.
THE LAND CAN BE GIVEN TO A
STATE, COMMUNITY.
THAT IS THE SUBSTANCE AND I URGE
MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
WE REVIEWED THIS AMENDMENT.
WE SUPPORT THE GOAL THAT HE IS
ATTEMPTING TO WORK WITH HIM AND
THE F.A.A. HAS RAISED SOME
CONCERNS, MAINLY THAT IT WOULD
CAPTURE ALL AIRPORTS AND HAVE AN
OVERLY BROAD EFFECT.
I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY THAT
CREATED THAT.
A SO WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
IF THERE IS SOME WAY WE CAN
ACHIEVE AN OBJECTIVE THAT IS A
PERFECTLY, REASONABLE OBJECTIVE
WITHIN THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
AND WITHOUT CAUSING PROBLEMS --
IN OTHER PLACES THAT ARE
UNINTENDED.
WITH THOSE, WE SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENT AND LOOK FORWARD TO
WORK WITH YOU AS WE GO FORWARD.
COMMENTS.
AND I COMMIT TO WORK WITH YOU TO
MAKE IT IT IN THE BEST POSSIBLE
FORM.
I RESERVE.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW MEXICO
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I YIELD TO YOU.
I WAS GOING TO CLAIM
TIME IN OPPOSITION AND SPEAK IN
FAVOR AND GET THIS WRAPPED UP A
LOT QUICKER IF WE DO IT THIS
WAY.
I'M CO-SPONSORING THIS
IN THE WEST, WE HAVE -- THE
PROBLEM IS GREATER AND MORE
EXTENSIVE THAN THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY, BUT WE HAVE SMALL
PARCELS OF LAND THAT ARE OWNED
BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THIS IS A
COMMONSENSE MEASUREMENT THAT
WOULD DISTRIBUTE THOSE PARCELS
OF LAND AND IT IS THAT THE VALUE
BE ACCORDED TO THE GOVERNMENT
WHATEVER AGENCY IT IS.
YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE FAIR MARKET
VALUE FOR IT AND GETS IT INTO
THE HANDS OF AN ENTITY THAT WILL
DEVELOP THE LAND OR HOLD IT.
IT IS A COMMONSENSE AMENDMENT
THAT MAKES FOR SMOOTHER
OPERATIONS DOWNSTREAM AND WOULD
GLADLY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT AND
URGE A YES VOTE.
IF NO ONE CLAIMS
TIME IN OPPOSITION, I'M HAPPY TO
CLOSE.
I APPRECIATE MR. PEARCE'S WORK
ON THIS AND MR. PETRI'S ONGOING
IT HAS BEEN A GOOD BIPARTISAN
EFFORT AND I ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT IT.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM UTAH, MR.
MATHESON.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT AND THE AMENDMENT
IS GOODE TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 31 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-46.
-- FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
AS THE DESIGNEE OF THE THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA,
REPRESENTATIVE WATERS.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 31,
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-46
OFFERED BY MR. SCHIFF OF
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 189, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. SCHIFF, AND
A MEMBER OPPOSED, EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
YIELD.
EARLIER THIS
AFTERNOON, WE DISCUSSED THIS
AMENDMENT WITH THE PRINCIPAL
AUTHOR, YOUR COLLEAGUE, MS.
WATERS.
WE'RE PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENT.
WE KNOW IT WAS OFFERED IN GOOD
FAITH AND IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE
AMENDMENT THAN AN EARLIER ONE WE
DISCUSSED.
SO I WOULD URGE A YES VOTE ON
HER AMENDMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE,
REPRESENTATIVE WATERS, THANKS
AND LET ME STATE FOR A COUPLE OF
POINTS THAT MY COLLEAGUE WOULD
LIKE ME TO MAKE AND THIS
AMENDMENT STATES THAT IT'S THE
SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE LOS
ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS, THE
OPERATOR OF L.A.X. SHOULD
CONSULT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE COMMUNITY REGARDING AIRPORT
OPERATIONS IN PLANS TO EXPAND,
MODIFY OR REALIGN.
L.A.X. IS LOCATED IN
REPRESENTATIVE WATERS'
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
ACCORDING TO THE WEB SITE, IT IS
THE SIXTH BUSIEST AIRPORT IN THE
WORLD AND RANKS 13TH IN THE
WORLD FOR AIR CARGO.
THERE WERE 656,000 TAKEOFFS AND
LANDINGS IN 2006.
UNFORTUNATELY THEY MAKE NOISE.
IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS
OF REALIGNING THE RUNWAYS ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE AIRPORT.
THIS REALIGNMENT COULD HAVE A
TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON OUR LOCAL
RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO THE
AIRWAYS ARE OPPOSED TO MOVE THE
RUNWAYS NORTH WHICH COULD FORCE
FAMILIES TO LOSE THEIR HOMES.
SOME FAMILIES, EAST OF THE
L.A.X. UNDERNEATH THE FLIGHT
PATH OF THE PLANES ARE CONCERNED
THAT RECONFIGURATION WILL RESULT
IN INCREASE IN AIRPORT NOISE.
SOME OF THE PEOPLE MOST IMPACTED
DO NOT EVEN BENEFIT FROM THE
SERVICES THAT L.A.X. IS INTENDED
TO PROVIDE.
MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
CLOSEST TO THE AIRPORT ARE LOW
INCOME WHO CAN'T AFFORD THE
BENEFITS OF AIR TRAVEL.
IN COMMUNITIES LIKE LOS ANGELES
WHERE AIRPORTS ARE LOCATED NEAR
RESIDENTS WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO
USE THEM, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
OPERATORS LISTEN TO THE CONCERNS
OF THOSE RESIDENTS.
THIS IS A SIMPLE NONBINDING
AMENDMENT THAT WILL NOT AFFECT
OTHER AIRPORTS AND I THANK THE
CHAIRMAN FOR HIS SUPPORT AND I
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS AS WELL.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
OPPOSITION.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MR. SCHIFF.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT AND THE AMENDMENT
IS AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 32 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-46.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 32
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT NUMBER
112-46 OFFERED BY MS. MOORE OF
WISCONSIN.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
WISCONSIN, MS. MOORE, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL BE
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
THIS AMENDMENT
ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ZONES.
LET ME START OUT BY
CONGRATULATING AND THANKING THE
COMMITTEE FOR INCLUDING THE
AMENDMENT IN THE UNDERLYING BILL
THAT WOULD DIRECT THE F.A.A. TO
ADOPT POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE
ZONES.
NO AIRPORTS EXISTS IN ISOLATION.
THERE ARE TARGETED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND THE
SYSTEM WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY
BENEFIT THE AIRPORT AND MAKE IT
MORE PROFITABLE.
AND ALL OTHER USERS WOULD BE --
WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO DO
THAT IN THE FUTURE AND MAKE
THESE AIRPORTS THE HUB OF THESE
I SO APPRECIATE MR. COHEN'S
LEADERSHIP ON THIS AND RECOGNIZE
THE VALUE OF HIS NEW WAY OF
LOOKING AT OUR NATION'S AIRPORTS
AND THE VALUE THAT THAT BRINGS
TO US.
MY AMENDMENT GOES ONE STEP
FURTHER, BY GIVING THE
ADMINISTRATION EXPLICIT
AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
HELPING TO FUND AEROTROPOLIS
PROJECTS THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE
PARTICIPATING AIRPORT.
IT BUILDS ON MR. COHEN'S
AIRPORTS BY MAKING IT CLEAR THAT
THE ADMINISTRATOR CAN AUTHORIZE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS, BUT ONLY
IF AN AIRPORT AUTHORITY MAKES A
CONVINCING CASE THAT IT HAS A
PROJECT THAT WILL RESULT IN
CLEAR BENEFITS TO THE AIRPORT.
NOW A LITTLE BIRDIE TOLD ME THAT
THERE WILL BE SOME OBJECTION TO
THIS PROPOSAL BASED ON THE
SUPPOSITION THAT I'M ARGUING FOR
A SUDDEN SHIFT IN AIRPORT
FUNDING TO BE USED FOR OTHER
TRANSPORTATION MODES AND NO, NO,
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TRYING
TO DO.
I RECOGNIZE THAT AIRPORTS HAVE A
UNIQUE NEED AND DESERVE A
SUSTAINABLE AND DEDICATED STREAM
OF FUNDING.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THAT
SAME FUNDING STREAM -- THAT WHEN
THERE ARE TIMES THAT AIR MODAL
TRANSPORTATION WILL BENEFIT AT
AN AIRPORT, MAYBE BRING IT BACK
TO LIFE, INCREASE PROFITS FOR
IT, WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT.
I WISH MY COLLEAGUE FROM
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE WERE HERE.
OUR AIRPORT IS ONLY 90 MILES
FROM O'HARE, A GLOBAL NETWORK.
THE DEEPEST PART OF LAKE
MICHIGAN, OUR PORT, IS IN
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.
WE HAVE LOTS OF PARCELS OF LAND
AVAILABLE FOR TRUCKING AND
STORAGE.
OUR GOVERNOR, OUR VERY POPULAR
GOVERNOR, SCOTT WALKER, WHO JUST
TURNED DOWN $810 MILLION FOR
HIGH SPEED RAIL, NOW WANTS $150
MILLION TO IMPROVE THE ONE
THROUGH CHICAGO AND MILWAUKEE.
WE'RE ONLY 90 MILES FROM O'HARE
WHICH IS OVERCROWDED AND SO I
THINK THE AEROTROPOLIS CONCEPT
COULD IMPROVE THE PROFITABILITY
OF THAT AIRPORT.
I WOULD RESERVE THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA RISE?
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
AND CLAIM TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
WHILE I DO RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT, I
DO WANT TO FIRST OF ALL THANK
THE GENTLELADY FROM WISCONSIN
FOR BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT
FORWARD.
OUR COMMITTEE DID HAVE AN
AMENDMENT WHICH WE INCLUDED A
PROVISION FOR THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TENNESSEE WHO SHE'S BEEN WORKING
WITH, MR. COHEN.
I THINK THEY HAVE AN EXCELLENT
PROPOSAL FOR LOOKING AT A
BROADER SCOPE OF HOW AVIATION
SHOULD WORK AS AN INTERMODELE
ENTITY AND ON A LARGER BASIS AND
I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY
THE LANGUAGE IS DIRECTING
CERTAIN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
SO WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH,
AGAIN, THE GENTLELADY WHO BRINGS
THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD WITH MR.
COHEN, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TENNESSEE.
WE DID PUT PLACE HOLDER
PROVISION IN AND SUPPORTIVE
LANGUAGE OF AGAIN THIS TYPE OF
PROPOSAL.
BUT AGAIN I WOULD HAVE TO
RELUCTANTLY OPPOSE IT, BUT I
AFTER TO -- OFFER TO SUPPORT, IF
THE GENTLELADY'S WILLING TO
WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT, SHE
WOULD HAVE THAT COMMITMENT FROM
ME.
I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD
SOME TIME TO MY GOOD FRIEND, THE
RANKING MEMBER, MR. RAHALL.
I DO RISE IN SUPPORT
OF HER AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD
ALLOW THE F.A.A. TO CONDUCT
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN
SUPPORT OF AEROTROPOLIS ZONES
AROUND AIRPORTS.
THESE ZONES WOULD ENCOURAGE
COMPATIBLE LAND USES AROUND
AIRPORTS, THEY WOULD ALSO
FACILITATE TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS THAT WOULD IMPROVE
AIRPORT ACCESS AND REDUCE
CONGESTION.
THESE PROJECTS WOULD NOT BE
REQUIRED BUT THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD GIVE THE F.A.A.
PLECKSABILITY -- FLEXIBILITY TO
ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AROUND
OUR NATION'S AIRPORTS TO THE
BENEFIT OF FLYING PUBLIC AND
LOCAL ECONOMIES AND I COMMEND
THE GENTLELADY ON HER AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
RECLAIMING MY TIME, I WOULD JUST
SAY, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
GENEROUS OFFER OF THE GENTLEMAN,
THE CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE,
TO WORK WITH ME ON IT.
I THINK THAT WE CAN DEMONSTRATE,
I THINK A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
WOULD HAVE ACCORDINGED US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO -- ACCORDED US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW YOU THIS.
BUT I'M SURE THAT THIS IS SO
PROFITABLE THAT MANY PLACES LIKE
IN MILWAUKEE WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THIS.
SO I WOULD BE WILLING TO
WITHDRAW THIS AMENDMENT AT THIS
IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK
WITH ME TOWARD IMPROVING THE
LANGUAGE AND PROFIT THROUGH
WHICH THIS COULD BE REALIZED.
DOES THE GENTLEWOMAN
RESERVE?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA IS
AGAIN, YIELDING MYSELF
TIME, WELL, I WISH OPENLY AND
VERY ACTIVELY PURSUE THE GOAL
THAT THE GENTLELADY HAS SET HERE
AND ALSO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TENNESSEE WHO PROVIDED THE
UNDERLYING PROVISION THAT WE
HAVE AND THE BILL THAT WILL BE
PASSED AND I KNOW THAT HER GOAL
IS DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE
EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE AND
SUSTAINABLE INTERMOW DAL
CONNECTIVITY TO A DEFINED REGION
AND I SHARE THAT GOAL.
SO I WILL WORK WITH HER.
ALSO, IN CLOSING, SINCE THIS IS
THE LAST AMENDMENT, I THINK,
THAT MR. CROWLEY DOES NOT INTEND
TO APPEAR, I DO WANT TO THANK
THE GENTLELADY, AWANT TO THANK
THE RANKING MEMBER -- I WANT TO
THANK THE RANKING MEMBER, MR.
RAHALL, I DON'T SEE MR.
COSTELLO, THANK CHAIRMAN PETRI
AND THE STAFF WHO HAVE WORKED
THROUGH THIS.
THERE ARE SOME DISAGREEMENTS ON
SOME OF THESE ISSUES BUT WE HAVE
MEMBERS THAT ARE WILLING TO
AGAIN COME FORWARD, STATE THEIR
POSITION, THE GENTLELADY FROM
WISCONSIN HAS DONE THAT AND
ADVOCATED HER PARTICULAR
PROVISION AND AMENDMENT BUT I
THINK THAT IN ALL IT'S BEEN A
GOOD HEALTHY DEBATE AND EXCHANGE
, AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR MANY,
MANY AMENDMENTS THROUGHOUT THE
DAY AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE IT,
AGAIN, WORKING WITH THOSE WHO
HAVE HAD PROPOSALS THAT MAY NOT
HAVE GOTTEN IN THE BILL BUT WE
WOULD WORK ON IN CONFERENCE AND
AGAIN WHILE WE DO HAVE SOME
DISAGREEMENTS I THINK WE'VE DONE
PROBABLY AS GOOD A JOB AS WE
CAN.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD A MOMENT TO,
IF I MAY, TO MR. RAHALL, MY
RANKING MEMBER, DEMOCRAT LEADER
OF THE COMMITTEE.
FOR YIELDING.
I WANT TO SECOND THE COMMENTS
HE'S MADE ABOUT THE FAIRNESS ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND I
THINK THE CHAIRMAN HAS BEEN
PARTICULARLY FAIR.
I ALSO COMMEND THE STAFFS ON
BOTH SIDES FOR THEIR HARD WORK,
MR. PETRI, I COMMEND HIS
LEADERSHIP AND MR. COSTELLO AS
WELL ON MY SIDE OF THE AISLE.
AND LET'S ALL HOPE THIS IS THE
LAST TIME WE GO THROUGH THIS
THIS YEAR ON THIS BILL.
AGAIN I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN AND THE GENTLELADY AND
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME AND BOTH ON THIS AMENDMENT
AND HOPEFULLY ON THE BILL.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
I YIELD BACK, THANK
YOU.
DOES THE GENTLEWOMAN
SEEK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT?
YES, I SEEK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO WITHDRAW THE
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
THE AMENDMENT IS WITHDRAWN.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 33 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-46.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA RISE?
I MOVE THE COMMITTEE
DO NOW RISE.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE MOTION TO RISE.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT, THE COMMITTEE
RISES.
MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MR. SPEAKER, THE
HAVING HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION
H.R. 658 DIRECTS ME TO REPORT
THAT IT HAS COME TO NO
RESOLUTION THEREON.
THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE
UNION REPORTS THAT THE COMMITTEE
HAS HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION H.R.
658 AND HAS COME TO NO
RESOLUTION THEREON.
ON BEHALF OF THE MAJORITY AND
MINORITY LEADERSHIP, THE CHAIR
ANNOUNCES THAT THE OFFICIAL
JECKTURES FOR THE PRIVATE
CALENDAR FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS
ARE AS FOLLOWS.
FOR THE MAJORITY, MR.
SMITH OF TEXAS, MR. SENSE
BRENNER OF WISCONSIN, AND MR.
POE OF TEXAS.
FOR THE MINORITY, MR. SERRANO OF
NEW YORK, MR. NADLER OF NEW YORK
AND MS. EDWARDS OF MARYLAND.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
THERE BEING NO FURTHER
BUSINESS BEFORE THE HOUSE, AT
THIS TIME, MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE
THAT THE HOUSE DO NOW ADJOURN.
THE
QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO
ADJOURN.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE VIRGINIAS -- AYES HAVE IT.
THE MOTION IS ADOPTED.
ACCORDINGLY THE HOUSE STANDS