Providing for Consideration of H.R. 658, FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.
House Resolution 189 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. The rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for Members of the minority and majority to participate in the debate.
This structured rule has made in order dozens of amendments on a wide range of provisions in this bill, but also in transportation policy in general.
In addition to the 1 hour of equally divided general debate on the bill, the rule has made 33 amendments in order, including 18 amendments from the minority, 12 from the majority, and three bipartisan amendments. Of the 24 amendments offered by the minority, 21 were made in order by this rule.
I point out the number of amendments made in order by this rule by specificity because it is so unusual. The last long-term FAA reauthorization passed Congress in 2007, and the rule for that bill allowed for only five amendments to be debated on the floor.
[Page: H2123]
Since the last long-term FAA reauthorization expired, Congress has passed 18 short-term extensions, and never once has any of the rules allowed for any amendment of any kind to be debatable on this floor.
While many at home may assume that when the House debates something as important as the aviation system, their Member of Congress is given the opportunity to offer and submit ideas and debate those ideas on this floor, it has not been the case in recent years.
Today, we will likely hear from Members of the minority insisting that the underlying bill contains inadequate funding, despite the fact that our Nation is facing a $1.6 trillion deficit and we should be tightening our belts just like families across America are doing.
We may hear Members from the other side of the aisle complaining that the legislation eliminates government subsidized ``essential'' air services to rural areas of America, despite skyrocketing costs to taxpayers during an already stressful economic time.
And we may also hear from colleagues that suggest that the legislation contains a poison pill provision on rewriting union election rules, despite those rules being in place and overwhelmingly effective for the last 70 years.
To those complaints, I would specifically and simply ask and suggest: Vote for the rule. The rule allows for amendments to debate alternatives of all kinds to the base bill, to be debated and heard on this floor. To me, that is a good thing.
[Time: 13:30]
To be sure, some of the above issues are addressed by amendments, those issues I just mentioned, and they are all going to be debated shortly, as soon as we pass this rule and begin debate on the bill.
So, if you have any concerns with the bill, I would implore my colleagues to support the rule which allows for those concerns to be debated by the duly elected Members of this body. Amendments will pass or fail based on the merits of arguments made by proponents and opponents of these ideas, and if at the end of the process the Members are still not satisfied with the final product, they can vote against it.
However, to vote against the rule, which would allow this debate to take place, suggests satisfaction with the underlying bill as it is currently written. And I would understand that position, because I support the bill as well. I support passing a 4-year extension that would allow for long-term aviation system planning instead of a merely short-term cookie-cutter fix that accomplishes very, very little.
I support tightening our belt and rolling back funding to 2008 levels to save taxpayers $4 billion over the next several years.
I support consolidating aging, obsolete and unnecessary FAA facilities and expanding the cost-effective contract tower program, which allows airports to utilize privately operated, more efficient control towers.
I support passing a reauthorization that is 100 percent free of earmarks, tax increases or passenger facility charges. And the list goes on.
But most importantly, this debate we have here on the floor right now is for this particular rule. If you don't support these things, the rule allows Members to bring alternative proposals before this House for an open and honest debate.
So, once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the underlying legislation. The committees of jurisdiction have worked to provide us a long-term reauthorization that can streamline the modernization of our aviation system while ending the practice of short-term fixes when it comes to funding this crucial service. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will say this: I came here to talk about the rule. I didn't come here to talk necessarily about the underlying bill, although I do support the underlying bill. The rule is what is before us right now, not necessarily the policy that is underneath it. We will be discussing that. There will be amendments offered that could change many of the things spoken of by my good friend from Massachusetts.
But I ran for election to this House of Representatives based on the fact that I told people America is not broken; Washington is. One of the things that was broken in Washington was the process. The process that I saw, the process that was inherited by our own Speaker, was a process based on a pyramid of power, and that pyramid of power was so high, it was as high as the Space Needle, probably, and a few people at the top of that pyramid are the ones that made the decision, not anyone else.
So why were there so many closed rules? Because the pyramid of power said this is what we're going to do and this is what you've got to do, and you've got to go vote, unfortunately. That is what I came here to change, and I think the Speaker did, too, and he created a process by which there were amendments offered on the floor of this House on these bills so people can address the problems that they have.
So he has pushed down the pyramid of power and spread out the base so every single Member had an opportunity to file an amendment, and almost every one of those were made available to be used on the floor of this House by this rule. It was done because we want the membership, as the Speaker has said, he wants this to be the people's House. He wants the people to have an opportunity to have their Member heard on particular issues and particular amendments.
Yes, there will be debate on this bill, there will be debate on the underlying measure, and we will be talking about that and I will be voting for that. But that is not what we are here to talk about right now, and, that is, there is a process. It was broken, and we are doing everything we can to fix it. This rule helps do that.
This rule is a rule that allows for open and honest debate on amendments, on the bill itself, and, to me, that is a great improvement over where we have been in the past. So push down that pyramid of power. Spread out the base. Let every Member be a player. Do it by voting for this rule.
I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I still want to bring it back to the issue at hand. We're talking about a rule here, and I have found that no matter what you're making--you could be making widgets or you could be making laws--if the process is flawed, whatever you manufacture, whatever you make is flawed. And that's what we're trying to improve here.
The previous Congress, I believe, had a flawed process. This is an improvement. It allows for 33 amendments. I will remind everyone there were 18 extensions of this particular piece of legislation over the past several years. Not one of them ever, ever had an amendment offered on the floor of this House. This is one piece of legislation with 33 amendments being offered. That, to me, is an improved process.
What happens when you improve the process? When you improve the process, the product is always going to improve. I have a business, and I know, Mr. Speaker, you do. And you know that everything you can do starts with first making that process better. That's what we're doing. That's what this rule does. It improves the process, and by improving the process, the product that's produced by this House--which is not in question right now because there are 33 amendments filed for this underlying bill that have been made available for this House to debate. So we don't know what the final product is going to be, and we'll have to wait and see. That's a whole lot better process than coming in and voting ``yes'' or ``no'' on a particular piece of legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the House again we're talking about this rule. And there was an opportunity to file amendments on all the issues that are being brought up.
There was an amendment filed on that very issue. It wasn't my fault it was withdrawn. It was the sponsor's fault it was withdrawn. Had it not been, there might have been a difference. It might have been heard here. We might have been able to discuss and wouldn't have to discuss it while we're discussing a rule. But for some reason it was withdrawn.
I also want to remind the membership that last Congress, zero open rules. Zero. None. No amendments were offered on this floor. It was like a silence that existed for a long period of time. No Member could stand up and give an amendment to any type of piece of legislation. That's a sad thing. That, to me, is a broken process.
And I'm glad Chairman Dreier came because he too, along with the Speaker, has said we want to have as open a process as we possibly can. We want to allow for amendments. We want to allow for opportunities in a process that's better than last time; that as we improve this process, we're also going to improve the policy that we present to this floor and to the public once it passes and it's signed by the President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to go back again to where we were. We are talking about a rule. We are talking about a process, a good process, that allows for amendments. I know that the other side is thinking, Wow, we've got to come in here and argue this bill. We've got to argue the underlying part. You don't. You've got plenty of time to do it because this rule will allow for good, lengthy debate, not only on the bill, itself, but also on the 33 amendments that have been offered.
I would encourage them to think about the fact that this rule is what we are voting on. This rule is a good rule and an open process, one that allows for every Member to participate. I would tell them, again, to vote for this rule. That's my response to any of the criticisms of this bill.
Yes, they're going to be addressed by an amendment. Come make your case, and see if you can pass it.
I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to providing a more accountable, transparent, and open process than the minority allowed during previous Congresses. Today's bill is another step in that right direction, an example of the House Republicans' commitment to reform the way things are done here in Washington. The underlying bill has bipartisan support, it went through regular order, and it was provided a structured rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to offer amendments, their ideas, in an open and honest debate.
While I am supportive of the underlying legislation, this vote on the rule that provides an open and transparent process, which allows 33 amendments from both sides of the aisle, where ideas and policy will rise or fall on the basis of their merit and not on any particular sponsor's party affiliation, this is what the American people expect in their elected officials.
I would like to introduce to you one of the new Americans that was born last night at 10:50. This is Claire. She is our seventh granddaughter, and we're excited about her. And she, just like the rest of the American people, believes that it is an expectation that is fulfilled by this rule, the rule that we have here before us, which is that we will have an opportunity to express ourselves in a real, transparent, open way on amendments and the underlying bill and have the opportunity to present ourselves and afford ourselves a chance to vote on each one of those proposals.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source