John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the intent of the gentleman who is the distinguished ranking member, former chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, but I think that the crafting of this amendment is somewhat flawed in that he does now require FAA to take their limited resources. FAA is not a security agency. It's an aviation agency. And again, we have a jurisdictional question here. We can't put in provisions that require TSA to do certain things, but that is their responsibility. I understand this is also already done where the repair station is at the airport. TSA is in the process of promulgating a rule to address repair station security. But it, appropriately, is in their realm, not FAA. And we do get into trouble in trying to carry out some of these missions when we go to agencies that really this is not their responsibility, their charter under Congress. Again, I think the gentleman's intent is good, but it's misapplied. So with that, I have to oppose the amendment as crafted. I'd be willing to work with him. There is a possibility of working with him, I think, and getting it right. I think his intention is good, but the assignment is misplaced, and it would cause more problems the way it's crafted than benefit. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MICA. I yield myself the balance of my time. I believe the gentleman's intention is good. The problem I have is with the crafting of the amendment. Now, heaven knows that there's probably been no one that's more critical of TSA. I helped create it along, actually, with Mr. DeFazio back in 2001. They have a lot of important responsibilities. One of them is clearly defined as aviation security, and it should be in repair stations. Quite frankly, I am concerned about beefing up some of that, getting some of the 3,700 bureaucrats that work and earn on average $105,000, just within miles of here, relocated to where they can do their security function at a place that does pose risk, and that's some of these foreign locations. But this doesn't do the job. It complicates the assignment we have for FAA. And TSA is in a rulemaking process to address this responsibility, which is appropriately located within the purview of, and again, the jurisdiction of TSA. So I, again, oppose the opposition, will work with the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. To close on the manager's amendment which I have offered today, first of all, let me just say that the two objections that have been raised again by the minority--and I appreciate their concerns--as to the safety reporting, which we put in some years ago, has actually resulted in probably the safest system that we've had in the world and the safest safety record in history. If you stop and think about it--I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee--the last large commercial aircraft that we had that went down, unfortunately, was near Veterans Day of 2001, after 9/11. Safety reporting is so important and is done on a voluntary basis, and it's so important that the people who collect this data are not held liable. They're collecting the data that benefits us to make this safe. This has worked. It's kept us safe. And we want to ensure, again, that this continues. Some will say we had commuter. Yes, we did have commuter. We also passed commuter safety legislation to deal with problems we had there. So we have a safe system. We don't want to stop that. We don't want the recording of the data to stop or those held liable that are collecting the data. That's the first point. The second point: lithium batteries. This is a lithium battery. This has a lithium battery. This is a pacemaker. This keeps your heart going. This has a lithium battery. Laptops have lithium batteries. Almost everything has lithium batteries. Leave it to the DOT to try to put in place rules that would create stopping granny and grandpa and others that need this pacemaker from getting it. If we didn't have this provision in here, it would be a $1.1 billion impact on industry. We'd reroute the shipment of this stuff through other countries to avoid paying and going through the onerous regulations that our government would create. Countless consumers would be forced to pay more because of silly regulations that don't make any sense. A severe supply chain issue and limitations on supply would be imposed. We would have delays in shipping lifesaving equipment. This little thing here that saves hearts, that's what they want to mess up. One more Federal regulation to delay shipping. Even our troops, who rely on these lithium batteries--their receiving them would be put at risk, the way DOT is doing. This is a good provision. It needs to be in the bill. We've got to keep some of the regulation, those that put us out of business, put jobs overseas and put people at risk, out of our way. I urge the House to pass the manager's amendment with these sound provisions that will make a big difference. Alliance for Worker Freedom, Washington, DC, February 15, 2011. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF), an organization established in 2003 to combat anti-worker legislation and promote free and open labor markets, I urge you to support the Title IX provision in the FAA Reauthorization bill which repeals last year's the unprecedented National Mediation Board (NMB) voting rule change. I write this letter in anticipation of an amendment which looks to strip this essential provision from FAA Reauthorization. Last year, the National Mediation Board reversed 75 years worth of precedent and numerous Supreme Court rulings, implementing elections rules whereby a majority of voters in a union election are now able to determine whether a collective bargaining unit has been formed. Prior to this ruling, a majority of a workforce was required to certify a union--a long held and well understood practice. The so- called ``minority rule'' ruling reveals a contempt for workers' preferences, as well as a clear bias towards union interests. The three member NMB is comprised of two former union officials, both President Obama appointees, giving them a stranglehold over the agency's rulemaking process. It is essential that this obscure agency, beholden to union interests, have its power checked via Congressional action. Title IX of the FAA Reauthorization legislation addresses the inappropriateness of this administratively imposed rule which aims to facilitate unionization at the expense of workers' preference. Union complaints that it has become too difficult to unionize workers, thus necessitating the NMB's change, are largely unfounded: majority rule has been used in more than 1,850 elections, and unions have won more than 65% of the time. Title IX looks to reinstate longstanding union election rules which require a majority of the workplace's consent to certify a union. It is for these reasons that I hope you will help ensure that Title IX remains in the final version of the FAA Reauthorization legislation and oppose any amendments that look to remove this provision. Sincerely, Christopher Prandoni, Executive Director.

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

Mr. MICA. Again, I have to say that I have the greatest respect for the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett and Mr. Andrews, and the gentleman from New York. They all do have interests here, and they are trying to protect them. They are concerned about noise with the New York airspace redesign. But, again, this has been going on for two decades. We have a very narrow corridor. We do need to redesign it. We have safety questions now. We have chronic delays, and 70 percent of them emanate from New York. They start in the New York airspace, and then they ripple across the country. So 70 percent of the Members are impacted by this particular provision. I appreciate their concern in asking for an additional study, but what they do in the provisions they have offered is delay implementation. We have just finished numerous court cases, which were consolidated, which ruled against those in question. I know it's difficult, but we've got to get this done. Again, I so much appreciate their looking out for their constituents, stating their concern and expressing in every way possible. I will continue to work with them and make certain that there is fairness to the implementation and whatever they adopt does not disturb or unduly cause distress for their constituents. That's all I can do. But I do have to oppose this amendment in the interest of the committee, the country, and the other Members. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. I would like to reserve my time that I acquired on behalf of the Ways and Means Committee to close and, I believe, if it's appropriate, have the Science Committee, which I think is yielded 5 minutes on each side, go forward prior to my close.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MICA. Although I claim time in opposition, I am going to speak in support of this amendment. I have the greatest respect for the delegate Congressman from Puerto Rico, also the highest esteem for Governor Fortuno, former delegate representative to this body, two great young leaders, and he's here today trying to ensure that Puerto Rico is treated like any other airport in the United States in terms of airport improvement programs. And I think his amendment clarifies that Puerto Rico also remains eligible for grants from the AIP discretionary fund. I also know Mr. Pierluisi is willing to work with me on his other amendment, which deals with essential air service. I had offered to work with other Members, and I will state for the record that I will work with him, and I am hoping that if he offers it, he'll withdraw it because I'm going to support this amendment. I think he has a good amendment here, and I would like to work with him on his other provision, but I would hope that he would work with us in that regard. So this amendment simply provides clear direction to the FAA that Puerto Rico Airport should be treated equitably, and I will support this amendment at this time and urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. MICA. I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chair, can I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New Jersey, and I understand his predicament. He has been one of the strongest advocates for his district on some of the potential problems that might arise from airspace redesign. I had the opportunity to travel to the gentleman's district to meet with his constituents. We have raised great concerns about the New York airspace redesign. Now, this does put in place another study of the airspace redesign, and, unfortunately, it delays the implementation of airspace redesign in the Northeast corridor, in that New York airspace, until that's complete. So that is why I have to oppose this. I will work with the gentleman in trying to make certain that FAA treats them fairly and that there are hearings. We have had 120 hearings. I have been in every jurisdiction from Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, all the way up into Connecticut, which is part of the New York airspace, in hearings and public meetings. There have been over 120 FAA meetings. This has been drug through the courts. There were suits, and they were all consolidated. The issues, again, were resolved, and FAA should go forward with airspace redesign and continue to address the concerns of the gentleman. Why is this important to everyone here? Because more than 70 percent of the chronically delayed flights around the United States start in the New York airspace. That means when New York goes down, the whole country starts going down. Now, you have got to understand that this battle has been going on for nearly two decades, in and out of court, and fights and everything for the redesign. So what we're left with is a corridor for airspace that is sort of like having U.S. 1 going into New York City 20 or 30 years ago and not expanding or revising the capacity. So that's why we have this situation. That's why I strongly urge not the adoption of this. I am willing to work with the gentlemen to try to, again, make certain that their concerns are taken into consideration. We do have quieter aircraft. I don't want him, his constituents, or any of the others in the New York airspace to suffer. But this has to come to a conclusion. Again, it affects everyone in the House of Representatives because more than 70 percent of our chronically delayed flights start in this area, and we have not been able to resolve this question. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MICA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit these letters in support of the bill for the record, and unless the gentlelady needs more time, I am prepared to support this amendment that is pending. Air Transport Association, Washington, DC, February 23, 2011. Hon. John Mica, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Mica: On behalf of the Air Transport Association, I am writing to thank you for your leadership and applaud your success as Chairman, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in successfully obtaining the full Committee's approval of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 658). After 17 short-term extensions over many years, the vote can only be attributed to your extraordinary leadership, tenacious effort and decisive chairmanship. America's airline industry knows how important this bill is to the Federal Aviation Administration and the nation. Certainly, H.R. 658 will move NextGen and other important programs forward at this crucial time, when the airline industry is still rebounding from this nation's devastating economic recession. Finally, the Air Transport Association and our airline members stand ready to assist you and your very capable staff as you prepare to conference with the Senate. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide additional support. Sincerely, Nicholas E. Calio.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. In closing, the President has threatened to veto this legislation because of the provision that we have. I can see why, because he packed the board. He packed the board. And on a 2-1 vote they overwrote a provision that was put in by FDR, confirmed by Truman and Carter and others. And then we heard that this is an assault on democracy. Well, folks, have you ever seen one-way democracy so the vote going in is fixed, but the vote going out is left the same? Please, folks, this is not the case. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. MICA. I would be pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the distinguished chair of the Aviation Subcommittee.

Mr. MICA. Again, I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady. I yield back the balance of my time, both on this amendment and hopefully on the bill.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield, 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. I know he has been an active member on the Transportation Committee. I know he is a pilot. But no one should be allowed as many amendments as he has had, and unless he agrees this is absolutely his last amendment, I would have to oppose it.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. The gentleman from Florida is correct, Madam Speaker, that this is about the rule, and the Rules Committee serves a very important purpose because we have 435 Members. When we come to the floor, you just can't have chaos. There has to be some structure. All Members are afforded the opportunity to speak if we go through our regular business.

Mr. MICA. I won't at this time because I have very limited time and you have lots of time left, so I won't yield. And mine is limited. And that's part of the process. Again, I was just yielded 5 minutes. So the Rules Committee sets the order of debate, how much time there shall be, how many amendments that are submitted. Now, I've been here awhile. My family's been around Congress awhile. The last 4 years, for anyone to come and say that this is an unfair rule is so far from being accurate. Fifty amendments were offered. As the chair of the committee, I pay attention to the amendments. I went before the Rules Committee and asked that they carefully consider these; and what you want to do is make sure you don't have duplicate, you don't have nongermane, and be fair to Members so everybody gets a chance. Some 48 were offered, 48 actually I understand. Thirty-nine were left after Members withdrew them. Thirty-three were accepted. That leaves six that they took out. If that's unfair in any way, it's hard to believe. So we have been fair. Mr. Webster's been fair, Mr. Dreier's been fair. I've never seen a fairer process. And in the last 4 years, when the place was run under basically martial law, you couldn't bring amendments up. Then, how did we get ourselves in this situation? For 4 years they had complete control of this body. They could have passed anything. But what did they do, they passed things but they passed so much and spent so much that the American people threw them out. They had enough votes in the House to pass anything. They had enough votes in the Senate to pass anything, and the last 2 years they've had a President that would sign anything. This aviation bill, 17 times they did an extension. I was the chairman in 2003 when we did a 4-year bill. We did a 4-year bill. It expired in 2007. My bill expired that I helped draft and author in 2003, expired after 4 years in 2007. Seventeen times they left the aviation policy, the funding formula, all the programs for safety and everything go on the most erratic basis you could imagine. Seventeen extensions, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. Go talk to the FAA administrator. And every time they did that, what they did to the disruption of one of the most important industries in the United States; 9.2 percent of our gross domestic product and activity is in the aviation industry, and they had 4 years to pass it. Unbelievable. In less than 4 months, we've already worked with the United States Senate. They've passed the bill. We've passed it through two other committees, and now our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is bringing it up here, under a fair rule, one of the most open rules with open participation by all Members on every side. So don't talk to me about fairness in rules. This is fair. Let's get it done and pass this rule, get the people's business done and get people working in the United States of America, instead of more hot air passing through this Chamber.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.