Daniel Webster

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Patty Harrelson on receiving the 2011-2012 Principal Achievement Award for Outstanding Leadership. I am honored to have the opportunity to offer my sincere appreciation for the hard work and dedication that went into this well-deserved award. At Florida's Commissioner's Summit for Principals, Florida Education Commissioner Gerard Robinson awarded Ms. Harrelson the award, naming Ms. Harrelson the state's top principal for her leadership at Rosemont Elementary School. Under Ms. Harrelson's guidance and direction, the Orange County school improved its school accountability grade from a ``D'' to an ``A'' in a single year. Taking on the responsibility of principal in 2010, Ms. Harrelson instituted reforms on every level, from curtailing truancy to bringing cutting edge technology into the classrooms. Because of her belief in Rosemont's students and her confidence in their ability to learn and meet academic standards, Ms. Harrelson worked tirelessly to raise expectations and reward achievement publicly. Her spirit of dedication and commitment to her students is an example of the life-changing impact a dedicated educator can have on a community and on the individual lives of students. She is a shining example of the fruits of selflessness demonstrated by our teachers and administrators who devote themselves to Florida's future by investing in Florida's children. On behalf of the citizens of Central Florida, I congratulate and applaud Ms. Harrelson for her hard work, dedication, and leadership. She is most deserving of the 2011-2012 Principal Achievement Award for Outstanding Leadership. May her investment in Florida's students and Florida's future inspire others to follow in her footsteps.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, pass the extension. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WEBSTER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the potential it holds for a bipartisan, bicameral agreement for a long-term transportation reauthorization bill. House Resolution 600 provides for a closed rule for prompt consideration of H.R. 4281, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012. H.R. 4281 simply calls for a 90-day extension of current transportation legislation at existing funding levels. Without the extension, critical transportation programs around the country will begin to shut down Saturday night at midnight. The Federal Government will no longer be able to collect the user fees necessary to maintain the highway trust fund, and eventually it would be unable to pay obligations that have already been incurred for construction projects. Most importantly, according to recent reports, a shutdown Saturday would immediately furlough 3,500 Federal employees and put up to 130,000 highway projects at risk. A 90-day extension is no one's ideal scenario; but at this juncture it appears necessary, necessary not only to avoid the calamity that comes from current legislation's expiration, but also necessary for the continued potential for a long-term reauthorization. With passage of this extension, a long-term reauthorization remains within reach. The transportation bill passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has many laudable provisions. It streamlines and consolidates Federal transportation programs, cuts red tape and Washington bureaucracy, and increases funding flexibility to States and local governments, better leverages existing infrastructures resources, and encourages more private sector participation in rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. It provides 5 years of certainty and stability with flat funding that is paid for without raising taxes. I'm sure that the authors and proponents of the Senate bill can point to a menu of laudable policy provisions within their bill as well. With this extension, we don't give up on the likelihood of the best of both bills being reconciled, and long-term certainty and stability can be provided to those tasked with rebuilding our Nation's transportation infrastructure. To be sure, however, the task at hand remains avoiding expiration of the existing authorization this Saturday night. I don't have to reiterate the consequences that loom if we do not act. As the Chamber of Commerce wrote in a letter to the Members earlier this week: ``An extension is not the best course of action, but it must be done.'' Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the potential this short-term extension holds for coming together in a bipartisan, bicameral way for a long-term authorization of our Nation's transportation programs. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the Congress passed SAFETEA LU, which is the last transportation reauthorization bill that was long term. There was, under the Democratic-controlled House, a bill proposed by the chairman that never made it to the floor, and because it didn't make it to the floor--my, my, my, how we've forgotten. It was only a couple of years ago. But it didn't make it. It expired. SAFETEA-LU expired in 2009, September 30, and there was a bill, never got marked up, never happened. So what happens instead? Well, let's see. Number 1, Democrats did a 1-month extension. Number 2, there was a 1.5-month extension. Number 3, there was a 2.5-month extension. Number 4, there was a 1-month extension. Number 5, there was a 9-month extension. Number 6, there was a 2-month extension. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but as far as lack of leadership, we are a long way from having that many extensions. We're a long way from having done what was done in the previous Congress. I would suspect that we have an opportunity here, and that opportunity, the way to avoid a shutdown of the Nation's transportation programs this Saturday night, is to pass this extension. The only way we can get to that is pass this rule which allows for us to consider that extension. The only way we can keep ourselves from having 3,500 Federal employees furloughed is to pass this extension. The only way we can keep 130,000 projects that are highway projects from being at risk is to pass this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the other side at least letting me know what they did over the last 2 years. They bifurcated the construction projects. They did it six times. At least now we know that they have knowledge of what they did during those times when they only gave, in some cases, 1-month extensions. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), my colleague.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. WEBSTER. Could I inquire of Mr. McGovern how many more requests for time he has?

Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. The situation we find ourselves in is certainly not ideal. I've been a strong proponent of a long-term reauthorization of Federal transportation programs. Recently, reauthorizations haven't been that long-term. But that's more often than not, also. The goal everyone is seeking is a long-term reauthorization. I hear that, the necessity of it, from all transportation officials all over the country, including my own State and in my own district. Without the ability to plan over the course of several years--not 3 months, not 17 months--that lack of certainty has increased the operating costs. It increases cost uncertainty, and that is the death knell for critical infrastructure projects in this economy. As my colleagues have noted, transportation reauthorization bills are typically bipartisan affairs. Unfortunately, we don't have a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a viable long-term reauthorization yet. But the passage of this brief extension gives us the opportunity to once again bring both sides to the table to try to work out a collaborative effort and a collaborative solution to this problem. I think that's what the American people want. It's our responsibility to make sure that happens, and this is the last chance to do it before the current legislation expires at midnight on Saturday. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. I yield myself the balance of my time, and will get back to the issue at hand. This is not necessarily a highway bill, but it does talk about a highway, one which is much faster than the ones we drive on. It is hard to imagine a world without a high-speed wireless Internet service. It is hard to imagine staffers walking down the hallways without some sort of wireless devices that they're communicating with others on, and usually their hands are glued to them. Communications and technology innovations over the past several years have made us a more connected world. In some instances, the new global connectedness has brought us even closer together, allowing us to share in similarities and differences between our peers in distant cultures. It has given us a chance to marvel at the world's best athletes on the grandest stages, and in some cases it has exposed the atrocities of war, intolerance, and disregard for human life. We want our innovations to continue and our inventors to keep inventing. In the communications and technology fields they have, and they continue to amaze us with new breakthroughs every day. This bill simply pulls back the curtain on the FCC, the agency charged with regulating the communications sector. It asks them to institute commonsense reforms to better keep the public informed on their actions. It requires the Commission to rigorously examine the marketplace before intervening; to give increased time for public input and comment; and to increase transparency while approving new rules and amendments. These process reforms are simply good government, and they should be embraced in a nonpartisan fashion. I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting of the text of the bill (H.R. 14) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this resolution. (The information contained herein was provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 111th Congresses.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any more speakers because I am prepared to close.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 595 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012. The rule makes 10 of the 11 amendments submitted to the committee in order. Of these, eight are Democrat-sponsored amendments and two are Republican-sponsored amendments. As noted by the subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, during the Rules Committee meeting on this last night, H.R. 3309 has come to the floor under regular order. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held an oversight hearing and subsequently a legislative hearing on Federal Communications Commission process reform. The subcommittee then circulated a discussion draft before holding an open markup and favorably reporting the bill to the full committee on November 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the full committee ordered the bill favorably reported to the House. In 2010, the communications and technology industry invested $66 billion to deploy broadband infrastructure, $3 billion more than in 2009. New products and services are innovated by this sector on an almost daily basis. With the innovation come high-quality jobs and marked improvements for every American's quality of life. As a result, all efforts should be made to avoid stalling this important economic engine. The FCC should strive to be the most open and transparent agency in the Federal Government, and any intervention into the marketplace should be the result of rigorous analysis demonstrating the need for government regulation. The Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act would change the process the FCC must follow in issuing regulations and limit the agency's ability to set conditions on transactions relating to corporate mergers and acquisitions. The legislation would require the FCC to be more transparent and methodical in determining whether to intervene in the communications marketplace in dealing with customers and regulated parties, and in reviewing transactions. Customers, small businesses, and outside-the-beltway stakeholders, in particular, do not have the regulatory lawyers needed for rush review of proceedings. The only way to get their input is to give them time to provide feedback on well-delineated proposals. Before it starts intervening, the FCC should make sure it has a full understanding of the state of competition and current technologies. By requiring the FCC to be more transparent, to find a market failure before proposing regulations, and to conduct cost-benefit analyses before adopting rules, H.R. 3309 helps promote jobs, investment, and innovation in one of the few sectors still firing on all cylinders in this economy. In particular, the bill prohibits the FCC from coercing parties to accept concessions, such as network neutrality obligations, as a condition of approving their mergers. Such conditions are typically unrelated to the specifics of the transaction and involve requirements the FCC otherwise lacks the policy justification or legal authority to impose. They also chill transactions that might otherwise advance the economy, and impose unnecessary costs on businesses. The bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace through a notice of inquiry before proposing new rules that would increase costs for customers and businesses; to establish the specific text of proposed rules before their consideration so the public and industry know what is being considered and have adequate information to provide input, much as House leadership has adopted in the layover requirement for the bills that we now hear on the floor; to identify a market failure or customer harm and conduct a cost-effective analysis before adopting economically significant rules that cost more than $100 million; to set the shot clock and schedules for issuing decisions and to report to Congress on how well it is abiding by them so the public and industry know when issues will be resolved; and to create performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a program that costs more than $100 million. These proposed process reforms are not radical, nor are they an attempt to cripple the FCC, as some opponents of the legislation have claimed. Instead, this legislation seeks to pull back the curtain on bureaucratic regulation of a sector of our economy that has provided high-tech innovation and investment, and the high-quality jobs that come with it, despite the economic downturn. So, once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WEBSTER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WEBSTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Elizabeth Tran for exemplary volunteer service. Elizabeth, age 17, of Orlando, has been named one of the top honorees in Florida by the 2012 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each State and the District of Columbia. Elizabeth is a junior at Cypress Creek High School and has raised more than $20,000 to support the Children's Miracle Network in the first two years of the ``Miss Miracle'' charity pageant, an annual event that she created. The ``Miss Miracle'' pageant is conducted in cooperation with Teens Go Green, an organization co-founded by Elizabeth and dedicated to raising public awareness for protecting the environment. All ``Miss Miracle'' contestants raise money to support the organization, and those contestants who raise the most are crowned ``Miss Miracle.'' The Prudential Spirit of Community Award was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals to encourage youth volunteers in their contributions to society, to emphasize the value of volunteerism, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past 17 years, the program has become the Nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, and has involved more than 100,000 young volunteers at the local, State, and national level. It is my pleasure to commend Elizabeth for her energy and initiative in seeking to make her community and world a better place to live by supporting organizations such as the Children's Miracle Network. Her commitment and accomplishment is extraordinary in today's world and deserves recognition. Her actions remind us that young Americans can play an important role in our communities. On behalf of the citizens of central Florida, I am pleased to recognize Elizabeth Tran's selflessness and enthusiasm for serving others and for making a difference. The kind of altruism evident in Elizabeth's efforts represents our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. May her efforts inspire others to follow in her footsteps.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Miles Saffran for exemplary volunteer service in his community. Miles, age 15, of Winter Park, has been named one of the top honorees in Florida by The 2012 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state and the District of Columbia. Miles is a sophomore at Trinity Preparatory School and has helped raise more than $60,000 to fund three medical trips to Mexico where he has served as the surgical youth coordinator for cleft lip and palate repair for Florida Hospital's mission trips. While in Mexico, Miles was responsible for assisting surgeons, organizing medicine, cleaning masks, and comforting patients and their families. The Prudential Spirit of Community Award was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals to encourage youth volunteers in their contributions to society, to emphasize the value of volunteerism, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past 17 years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, and has involved more than 100,000 young volunteers at the local, state and national level. It is my pleasure to commend Miles for his energy and initiative in seeking to make his community and world a better place to live. His commitment and accomplishment is extraordinary in today's world and deserves recognition. His actions remind us that young Americans can play an important role in our communities. On behalf of the citizens of Central Florida, I am pleased to recognize Miles Saffran's selflessness and enthusiasm for serving others and for making a difference. The kind of altruism evident in Miles's efforts represents our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. May his efforts inspire others to follow in his footsteps.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Not to my knowledge, no.