Michael Capuano

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment is perfectly fine with us, and I urge its adoption. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. CAPUANO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CAPUANO. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CAPUANO. While I understand the gentleman's concern about the accuracy of the FEMA maps, this bill does contain a 3-year delay of mandatory purchase and a 5-year phase-in thereafter. That's 8 years. We already have mechanisms in this bill that would insulate homeowners from the sticker shock of mandatory purchase while still alerting them to the fact that they actually live in a flood zone. I am very concerned that, in the absence of any maps, we place our homeowners and communities in the dark about the risks they may be facing. This is why the bill does not delay the maps, themselves, but only the mandatory purchase requirement. So, while I understand the gentleman's concerns, I must oppose his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the amendment is perfectly fine, and we hope that it will be adopted.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for a two- state solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. I believe peace can be achieved only through negotiations between the parties. I believe, further, that these negotiations must be based upon mutual respect and upon the unequivocal commitment of each to the rights of the other, including the right to live in peace and security in a sovereign state. Because I believe this, I supported H. Res. 268. I did not, however, vote ``yes'' because I felt the resolution was likely to promote those ends. I voted in the affirmative because I could not take exception to its substance. I oppose and I believe the United States should continue to oppose a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians, with a veto in the Security Council, if necessary. I believe that Hamas should accept the conditions set forth by the Quartet--the UN, the EU, the Russian Federation, as well as the United States--to renounce violence and acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. That said, I am not sure that it is helpful to the Palestinians, or to Arab governments in transition to democracy, to threaten suspending assistance to the Palestinian Authority as they seek to bring the West Bank and Gaza closer to a position from which negotiations with Israel could take place. If the resolution had called for the outright suspension of aid, rather than the consideration of its suspension, I would have had more difficulty supporting it. I would prefer, too, that the resolution had encouraged Israel to take positive steps, such as limiting settlement expansion, towards reconciliation with its neighbors. I look forward to constructive U.S. engagement in real bargaining, not just in an interminable ``peace process.'' I hope leaders in Israel and in Palestine will have the courage to present realistic options to their people, and I would like to see the United States foster serious diplomacy.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw people's attention to one of the great, nice spots of what's happening in the world today. There aren't many. We're going to hear about every one of them this morning. But there's at least one happening right now in Africa. Tomorrow we will welcome the newest nation to the community of nations, South Sudan. This is a country that most of us probably never heard of. I certainly didn't until a few years ago, and I heard about it because of some of the atrocities that are happening there. South Sudan is a country that is born out of 20 years of internal civil war--20 years--not from outside forces like this country likes to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. They did it themselves on their own, and I just want to stand up here today and tell them congratulations, to welcome them into the community of nations, and to tell them that I, for one, and I believe this House, will stand with them as they struggle to make sure that their new democracy is successful. They have a lot of threats on every border. They have a lot of internal issues. They are an incredibly poor country with a lot of challenges. But as the greatest democracy in the history of the world, we have an obligation to stand with them as they build their new democracy.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Now, I understand that people may see things differently and I respect people that would differ, but I cannot believe that anyone can honestly read the Constitution on this matter in an unclear way. Congress has the authority to declare war, period. That's why I'm here today. I'm not here to debate today whether we are right or wrong to be in Libya. That will come another day--maybe or maybe not. But I am here to say, uncomfortable as it is, unpleasant as it is, as difficult as it is, it is our responsibility to take action when it comes to declaring war. Every Member of Congress should be voting for this resolution because of that simple fact, and we can have other debates on another day.

Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors of this resolution. But I want to be honest, I take no pleasure in this. I'm an early and ardent supporter of the President on most everything. This has nothing to do, in my mind, with the President or, truthfully, even with the action in Libya. For me, this is about the Constitution, plain and simple. The Constitution is clear. It's not even about the War Powers Act. I personally think the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional. The Constitution is clear. On many things it's not. It is unequivocally clear that the declaration of war is the responsibility of Congress, period. No gray area there. Now, I know you can try to fudge on what the definition of war is, but when someone is shooting at someone else, that's war. If it's one person, 10 people, or 10 million, that's war. For me, that's what this is about. Now, don't get me wrong. I would hesitate strongly--I doubt that I would support the action in Libya. But that's not why I cosponsored this. And I've had some people say, well, 15 days is unreasonable. Well, okay. Then if this passes, they have 15 days to come back to us and ask us for more time, which I would be inclined to do if that's necessary on a military basis. What this simply says is that Congress has to stand up on our own two feet and take the actions that we took an oath to take, which is to uphold the Constitution.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It does two simple things. We worked with the Department of Transportation to make sure that we don't step on any toes. Very simply, it requires any airline charging a baggage fee to tell us what it is so that when you want to go online and get a hundred dollar ticket, you know it's going to cost you $120 for the baggage or whatever. Very simple. It also requires them to share that information with any other aggregator that they already have a contract with. It does not require them to share that information with people that they do not do contract work with. The second thing it does is it simply says, if you collect a baggage fee and you lose that bag, that you have to refund the baggage fee. Very simple. Two items, consumer protection. Everybody who travels, everybody who flies knows that these two issues have become problems. They are being unaddressed. DOT is looking at some regulations. They haven't done it yet. There is nothing in this bill that would interfere with that activity. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that this amendment be adopted. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I respect the chairman's opinion, but I respectfully disagree. There is nothing in this proposal, as drafted at the moment, that would require anyone to disclose any information to anyone they are not already giving information to. If an airline is already doing work with Orbitz or Expedia or KAYAK or any of those, they're already giving them all of the information. All this says, if when you go onto one of those Web sites, if they are already working with them. Some of them don't work with them at all. That's their prerogative. There's nothing that requires that. It simply says, if you are working with them, you have to add in the baggage fee. That's all it does. It's simply allowing people to make informed decisions as to how much they want to pay to actually travel with their own bags, not a very difficult thing. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the ranking member.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the Record a letter of support by Flyers Rights, the largest flying public representative in the country. March 21, 2011. Hon. John Mica, Chairman, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Mica: Congressman Michael E. Capuano recently introduced H.R. 712, which would require air carriers to refund passenger baggage fees if such baggage is lost, delayed, or damaged, and require air carriers and ticket agents to include the actual cost of checked baggage when quoting an airfare. This bill addresses two serious problems for air travellers, and the 33,000 members of FlyersRights.org strongly support this legislation. The first problem is all too familiar to anyone who flies frequently. About,10,000 bags a day are mishandled--lost, damaged, or delayed--and passenger recourse has always been limited. Lost or damaged bag incidents may result in some compensation. However, most airlines now charge fees for checked baggage. When a bag is lost, damaged, or delayed, they are under no obligation to return those fees, even though they have failed to perform the contract implied by passengers' paying for bag delivery to destination. Clearly, airlines should not profit from performance failures. The second problem is relatively new. Most airlines increasingly turn to unbundled, ancillary fees to boost their profit. These fees, not a part of the advertised ticket price, make it difficult for travellers to determine true trip cost. Mr. Capuano's bill would force airlines to proactively inform consumers of baggage charges before the travellers purchase tickets. This fee disclosure was made mandatory by a May, 2008, DOT rulemaking, but needs to become a part of public law. H.R. 712 complements and builds on DDT's rulemaking by requiring airlines to ask customers if they'll be checking baggage when providing a fare quote, and to then include that fee in their quote. It would also apply to ticket agents and fare aggregators, where it will probably be most useful. I again stress that FlyersRights.org strongly supports this legislation and views it as a strong step forward for airline passenger rights. Sincerely, Kate Hanni, Founder and Executive Director, FlyersRights.org. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this is a program that I'm the first to admit has not lived up to what our hopes were. This program we had hoped would help several million people. Thus far we've only helped about 550,000 people. I fully admit that this program, like all the other foreclosure programs, could use a healthy dose of reconsideration and improvement, and I'm happy to work with that. But to simply repeal all of these programs is to walk away from individual homeowners, walk away from neighborhoods. In this particular case, last week before the break, we walked away from neighborhoods. We walked away from cities and counties all across the country. In this case, we're walking away from homeowners. In this particular bill, as I said, this program, short of what we had hoped, it has still helped 550,000 homeowners to keep their homes, 550,000 with approximately another 150,000 on trial as we speak. And 550,000 homes, just as a point of information, is more owner-occupied homes than exist in at least 17 different States. Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, and on--all individually have fewer homes in the entire State than this program has helped. Yet we're going to walk away. Every single State in this Nation has homeowners who have been helped. In Illinois, 29,000 homes have been saved; in North Carolina, 10,000 homes; in my own State, 12,000 homes and counting. Again, I'm not going to defend the specifics or every single aspect of this program that has been put together, and I am happy to work with anyone to make it better, to help more people to keep their homes, keep their families together. But to simply walk away without offering an alternative means we don't care; this Congress doesn't care if you lose your home, period. Well, I understand that that's what some people want to say. They're entitled to do that. They're duly elected and have the power and authority to do that. But I just can't imagine they could look at the individual constituents in their district and say to their face, We don't care. And if you feel that strongly about it, then you should not just repeal the program prospectively; you should repeal it retroactively and tell the 550,000 people whose homes have been saved, We didn't mean it, it was a mistake, we didn't support it then, and as far as we're concerned, you can leave your home tomorrow. Now, I understand if that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal according to some people, so be it. Call me any name you want. But if you have the courage and the audacity to look at your own constituents and tell them forget it, you don't care, I would encourage you to do so.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1079, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011. As you heard, this is the 18th short-term extension for FAA programs. With the enactment of a long-term FAA reauthorization in sight, as the chairman has just mentioned--and we all look forward to that--I want to echo my colleague's hopes that this will be the last short-term extension. I know, if we have to have one, we'll probably do one, but we all hope that it's the last one we do. Without the enactment of this bill, the FAA's funding, programs, and expenditure authority would lapse on March 31. This clean and straightforward extension will keep the FAA operating at current funding levels for another 2 months, through May 31. It will give Congress time to work out the long-term reauthorization. Yet I want to be clear: While I support this short-term extension bill, I have serious concerns about H.R. 658, the long-term FAA reauthorization bill, which I expect the House may try to take up this week. In fiscal year 2010, the FAA's major programs were funded at approximately $16 billion. H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, is a 4-year reauthorization that would reduce the FAA's annual funding to approximately 2008 appropriation levels, $14.9 billion, for the remainder of 2011 and then each year through fiscal year 2014. H.R. 658 would effectively cut, roughly, $1 billion annually and almost $4 billion total below current funding levels for FAA's budget over the next 4 years. These proposed cuts will have dire consequences on our Nation's infrastructure, jobs, and the economy. Mr. Speaker, in February, the House Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing for industry stakeholders to testify about FAA reauthorization. In response to a question that I posed, witnesses representing the aerospace industry, general aviation manufacturers, general aviation pilots, airports, air traffic controllers, and FAA managers all testified that Congress could not cut $1 billion annually from the FAA's budget without harming safety-sensitive programs or hampering the industry. At the same hearing, Ms. Marion Blakey, the FAA administrator under President George W. Bush, stated: ``The prospect is really devastating to jobs and to our future.'' Every $1 billion of Federal investment in infrastructure creates or sustains approximately 35,000 jobs. Yet H.R. 658 would cut the airport improvement grants for runway construction and safety enhancements by almost $2 billion. Cuts to airport improvement grants alone would cost the Nation 70,000 jobs. So let's be clear about one thing: The FAA reauthorization bill that we will consider later this week will not create jobs; it will destroy them. Although much work is ahead of us, I'm optimistic that Congress will be able to enact a long-term bill and we will not be considering a 19th short-term extension this summer. For the present, however, this particular extension, this bill before us today, I support, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I missed a vote on Monday and I wish to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present: Rollcall No. 175--``yes.'' Rollcall No. 176--``yes.''

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the most legitimate argument I have heard is we have a deficit and we have to deal with it. That is a fair and reasonable point to make. However, it is not a fair and reasonable approach towards the problem to begin with programs like this. We can't even talk about what we are spending on the Iraq war. We can't talk about any money in the Defense Department or anyplace else. The first programs we start with are these types of programs. Let me be clear about what this program is. I am a former mayor in a strong mayor form of government. We get a fair amount of Federal and State money, and we use some of our own money on occasion to buy and rehabilitate property. Sometimes it meant knocking it down, sometimes it meant making a recreational area, sometimes it meant building a school, whatever it might be, to improve a neighborhood. And to say this money is not improving neighborhoods is just to be blind. There are stories all over the country where improvements are being made. I'm not going to argue that every single penny of this program or any other program has been perfectly well spent. That would be crazy. I have no problem at all looking at this program or any program to come up with things we don't like; to change the rules as to who might be eligible tomorrow. And on and on and on. Those are fine and fair things to say. I'm not going to defend one group or any formula. Those are legitimate things to argue about. But to say that the program doesn't work and this is where we should start addressing our deficit, I think, is to be shortsighted. It also says to me, if you don't like the program, that's fine. Then I would strongly suggest that anybody who doesn't like the program pick up the phone to their mayor, to their county administrator, to their Governor, and say, Send the money back. Every State in the country has gotten money. California has gotten over $886 million. If you don't want it, send it back. Massachusetts only got $106 million. Now, we think it's doing pretty well, so we're going to keep it. But if you don't want it, send it back. Nevada, a much smaller State than Massachusetts, got almost as much money because they got hit harder than we did in this economy. To argue that a few problems that you have--and I'm not even going to suggest that I agree or don't agree. The points are well made. If you don't want one entity, any entity to get $137 million, fine. Let's talk about it. Let's say they don't do it. That's not a problem. If you want to say that we have to change about how this money is being used, fine. Let's limit it. No problem. But to pretend that a neighborhood, any neighborhood, is well served by ignoring boarded-up properties, by saying, Walk away from your home, walk away from your business, and the neighborhood will recover without you, is shortsighted and wrong. And to pretend that somehow because we're giving this money away, that that is an inherent evil in and of itself, ignores all the grants that this government gives away, that other governments give away, not just in housing, but in research, in any number of fields. Again, if you want to cut out all grants, fine. That is a reasonable and consistent argument. But you also then have to cut out tax credits, because we give out billions of dollars in Federal tax credit dollars that do the same thing in housing. All I'm saying is if you want to fix the program, fix it. If you want to turn your back on neighborhoods, go ahead and do that. But not with my help.