John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much, Mr. Culberson, for yielding to me. I appreciate the gentleman yielding for the purpose of this colloquy. Madam Chairman, as you may know, the new Veterans' Administration Medical Center under construction in central Florida has experienced some serious delays and possible cost overruns that have raised significant concerns for Florida veterans who have earned and deserve this facility. With Florida's growing veteran population and more veterans returning to our State from current conflicts, this facility is, in fact, key to keeping our pledge to aid those who served our Nation. It is important to clearly state the intent and the serious commitment of Congress that this new facility should be completed as soon as possible, and also make certain that we do everything in our power to ensure that the Federal resources necessary are available to complete that project. Is this your intent?

Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. And I'm so appreciative of your commitment and support. This is very important to our veterans, and we are most appreciative of the commitment you've made to central Florida and those that have served our Nation, not only on this, but all the projects.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4097) to amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and for other purposes.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4097.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, today I am pleased to stand before you and offer for consideration of the House H.R. 4097, which would reauthorize the John F. Kennedy Center through 2014. Everyone knows the Kennedy Center. It is one of the most outstanding national and cultural treasures that we have in our Capital City. I am pleased to be the sponsor of what I consider important legislation for several reasons. First of all, in Congress, we get to do some exciting things. As chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, within our committee we have six subcommittees, and one does oversee public buildings. We've had a lot of public consternation--and rightfully so-- with some of our public buildings programs under the General Services Administration. I was home last week, and everybody in America recalls the guy in the hot tub thumbing his nose at Congress and the taxpayers. That's a bad example of behavior and wasteful expenditures of taxpayers' dollars. But I'm pleased to be here to say that there are many in government that do have programs that are very beneficial for the country, and one is the Kennedy Center. What an incredible institution. As the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I get to sit on their board of trustees. Actually, I've gone to their meetings and see how they operate. Most people don't know, but most of their programs are funded through private donations, not public donations, although the building does stay under the responsibility of the Federal Government. A lot of folks don't know a lot about the history of the Kennedy Center. The Kennedy Center--and I learned this being on the board--was actually an idea of a Republican President. Dwight David Eisenhower, in the 1950s, was determined to create a national cultural center in our Nation's Capital. This center was the idea and the genesis of one of our Presidents. Probably most people don't know that. I learned that in the rededication of the Eisenhower Theater within the Kennedy Center. After many years, it was renovated, again, mostly through private funds and donations. I actually saw an old clip of President Eisenhower when he came up with a plan for a national cultural center. Subsequently after that, of course, we had the assassination of our beloved President Kennedy. In 1964, they began work. In 1971, they actually opened the center and named it the Kennedy Center in honor of our late President. But a little bit about the history. I'm also excited about this proposal because this legislation authorizes one of the first additions I know of. I know we've done some repairs and some renovations, but we're actually talking about an addition to the Kennedy Center, and it's going to be funded with private money. Only private funds will be raised for this. So it's exciting to see a public-private partnership and the great leadership of the Kennedy Center. I have to pay a little bit of tribute to Michael Kaiser, the president. This guy works day and night to make everything happen at the Kennedy Center. And he, of course, reports to the chairman of the board, who is David Rubenstein. He does a magnificent job corralling some of the leaders of our Nation, those in business and free enterprise that come in and through their donations support the Kennedy Center. It's incredible--Washington, D.C. programs. It truly has made the Nation's Capital a center for a whole host of cultural activities-- dance and theater and symphonic music, and the list goes on and on. And many people across the Nation get to see it in their own living rooms. They don't always get to come to our Nation's Capital, but we've seen those performances that are televised. So it is a rich part of our Nation's Capital, and certainly a rich part of our Nation's culture, and we are now seeing for the first time an addition. This addition will support the center's educational mission, and that's very important. It will be a benefit, again, both for Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, and for the Nation. And internationally they have programs today. The purpose of the expansion is to provide improved facilities of the Kennedy Center by adding approximately 56,000 square feet of space for classrooms, rehearsal rooms, event spaces, and offices. And for the first time, they will have a dedicated area for educational purposes, as I've outlined; other rehearsals and other functions and activities and things that don't fit into some of the theater and some of the existing facilities that they have already in the main building. So the expansion will permit the center to address its growing needs and provide greater accessibility for the center's programs and performances for the general public. So I'm pretty excited about this proposal. Most people don't know that we worked some years, 15 years, on the visitors center. We also were raising funds. Part of the construction of that visitors center was raising funds privately. Most people wouldn't know that the author of the visitors center was Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, who made an agreement that half the funds would be raised privately for that visitors center here at the Capitol, and also some public funds. Of course, all that changed with September 11, when the Capitol was attacked and our Nation was attacked, and we had to make some dramatic changes in that whole funding, and security issues that were raised there. But, like the visitors center, we're raising funds. This is totally, again, the private sector that is building this facility and great addition to the Kennedy Center. So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. In closing, again, I think this is a very significant piece of legislation that does authorize the first addition that I know of to the Kennedy Center. Not only does it do that, it does it with the whole expansion being done with private funds. But we do have to authorize that. Again, the Federal Government is the custodian and trustee of the center. Also, I think this bill is brought forward in a fiscally responsible approach for maintaining the facility, and we authorize the capital repair and maintenance program for the Kennedy Center at the requested level, and also in a reduction from current spending levels. So whether it's the cultural center of the Nation, the Kennedy Center, and all other government programs either partially funded, like this, or publicly funded, we've got to do more with less taxpayers' money in a responsible fashion. This legislation does that, and I'm pleased to offer it for consideration of the House. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to take a little bit of time to explain to you and my colleagues and others who may be listening to this debate about what's happening now. The other side of the aisle has just offered a motion to instruct, and we're going to conference on an important piece of legislation. That's the transportation bill that sets the transportation policy for the United States of America. For all of our transportation projects, those projects that would be eligible, we identify the terms of participation for States and local governments and everyone who is going to receive Federal funds for transportation projects. So all of that is very important. It is important that we put people to work. When I go back home, I talk to people who lost their house, lost their job, and they want an opportunity to work. And you heard that, in fact, there have been nine amendments since the bill expired, and six of those extensions were passed under the Democrats. I've had to do three. They had complete control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and the White House, and still had to pass six extensions. Then I learned from our staff that they did not pass a single free-standing extension. Before we left for Easter, I passed a freestanding extension to get us so that we wouldn't close down jobs, that we wouldn't stop contracts, that we wouldn't stop people working. Now they're asking us to take the Senate carte blanche, a proposal which was adopted by the Senate--not a total vote, but it was a bipartisan vote--and just adopt it in their motion to instruct. Now, Madam Speaker, I just got through explaining the Constitution to a wonderful group of young people from the Stetson Baptist Christian School in DeLand, Florida, on the steps just a few steps from here-- right out that door and down those steps--and they stood there. I explained to them that the Founding Fathers created two Houses. The first body that they created, most importantly, the Congress of the United States, a legislative branch with a House and, yes, young people and teachers and chaperones that were listening, and I said also with the Senate. They did that because they wanted all of those opinions to come together and they wanted us to work, again, in a bipartisan fashion to come up with the best possible solution. Yes, they'd operated with Articles of Confederation with a unicameral government, but last time I checked down the hall, I think if we open those doors and look down there, there is the United States Senate, and this is the people's House of Representatives. I also explained to the students, this is the only body in which the Members actually have to be elected. Everybody else can be appointed. The Senators can be appointed. The President, actually you could replace him by appointment, the Vice President. But the only Federal representative that they have is the House of Representatives. But what they want to do is cast the participation of the House of Representatives aside and just adopt what the Senate has brought forward. I tell you that the House has worked hard. Now, I didn't have the benefit of 6,300 earmarks, which my predecessor had, to pass a bill, so it's taken me a little bit longer, and a few days ago we did pass a bill. It wasn't a bill that we passed out of committee, H.R. 7, with all the Republican votes but one, and we tried to bring to the House. It wasn't the vote that we heard in committee for some 18 hours, most of the time consumed not with Republican amendments but with Democrat amendments, over a hundred Democrat amendments, and I said we're going to sit there as long as it takes and give everyone an opportunity to participate in this free and open process, which we are doing here. Today they propose closing down that free and open process. Let's just adopt what the Senate tossed over to us. I say ``no,'' and I say ``no'' for a whole host of reasons. The Senate proposal is a proposal that will bankrupt the trust fund. The Senate proposal is a path to just building paths, to resurfacing, to short-term jobs, not answering the call of the people who sent us here to make certain that their transportation money, when they go fill up their gas tank, pay for 1 gallon of gas, 18.4 cents comes to Washington in the trust fund, and we spend it. That's what this sets the policy for, what's eligible for receiving those Federal dollars. But we'll just forget there's a House of Representatives and cast that body aside. I think not. I think even an eighth-grader from one of my schools at home can figure this out, Madam Speaker, and I just can't agree with this motion to recommit. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, who also chairs the Highways Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman who has authored one of the major amendments to the legislation that passed, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the outstanding new members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Mr. MICA. I have to be a little bit more verbose. Would you allow me additional time?

Mr. MICA. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the chair of the Rail Subcommittee, the distinguished member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of our star new members of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. MICA. And then we signed that and we sent it to the Speaker. It has gone to the Speaker. So now we're doing that, and now you're asking me to go to conference and roll over and play dead?

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to one of the senior members of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for time, and I yield myself the balance of my time. I started out talking about how it's important for the legislative process to properly be fulfilled under the terms of the Constitution and separation of responsibilities in the legislative body. This motion, of course, would close all of that down. We'd accept what the Senate has done without all of the work many Members have put into it. And I didn't go to Webster Springs, but I did go to Beckley, West Virginia, where we held the first meeting to allow the other side of the aisle to present at the very first of these deliberations their viewpoint and their recommendations for trying to pass a long-term transportation bill. We took many of those--as you heard, 60 percent of the recommendations form the other side. We took 100 amendments, considered them, and passed 20 during 18 hours of marking up and considering the bill. So we've tried to make this a bipartisan process and a full process that everyone gets to participate in. But now they're here telling us that we don't want the House to participate any further, and just take the Senate bill and go along. Now they, of course, passed six extensions, short term, keeping things in turmoil during--I think we calculated about 14 months. I've had to do three in about the same period of time. The difference is, I didn't have 6,300 earmarks, I didn't control the other body or that house downtown, what do they call it? The White House. But they controlled them all, all the branches, and they couldn't git 'er done. So, the Senate bill does not set a threshold on some of these environmental approvals that tie us up. And no one wants to step over any good environmental provisions. What we want to do is shorten a little bit the time that these things go under consideration. They go on and on. You heard Mr. Ribble talk: 15 years to approve some of the projects in his district, 7 years on average for simple processing if the Federal Government gets involved. And we keep repeating the same thing. You heard the speaker say it's like Groundhog Day around here, and we've got to stop the Groundhog Day, and we could do that by having the House provisions adopted. There are a whole host of things wrong with the Senate bill, and I won't get into them. And I know it's been a bumpy road to get here. I've told folks that when I became chairman--and I think the ranking member, when he became ranking member, neither of us was handed an operating manual. So this has been a bumpy road to get here, and it is a difficult process, but we tried to include everyone in that process and come up with the best suggestions and recommendations. Mr. Ribble's amendment, which is to streamline provisions of H.R. 7, is excellent. Well, we'll get more for less, and we can do it responsibly. Mr. Boustany from Louisiana's amendment getting the Highway Maintenance Trust Fund to get funds that are collected for improvement of the ports--actually they improve our ports that are so important to infrastructure. So there are many good provisions in our legislation. It's not what I would have exactly crafted or passed in the very beginning or brought out here, but it is a vehicle so that everybody can have consideration who has participated in this process. So I submit to you, although it's been a bumpy road with some twists and turns--we didn't expect that the Senate bill is a path to fewer jobs; it's a path to fewer projects actually getting done. It's a path to build only paths, if you want to look at it that way. Unfortunately, it's also a path to a dead end for transportation. So, I submit, Madam Speaker, that we take a different road, that we take a road to where we'll have more jobs. We could do more with less, and we can, I think, do a lot more for the American people in a very difficult time in our history in moving this great country forward and building our infrastructure. With that, I'll yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. When I took over as ranking member and we had sort of a rank way in which earmarks were done, I cleaned up the process. I think earmarks, there can be bad legislative earmarks and bad administrative earmarks. When they're done behind closed doors, they're not properly vetted, they're not transparent, and they haven't had the sunshine, the antiseptic sunshine to let people know what's going on and they're not a worthwhile project that has true support, they shouldn't be considered, whether by the administration or legislatively. I think that we have a moratorium now, and I'd like to see a different way to present those requests. I think fundamentally under Article I of the Constitution, I think it's section 2, we should, as the House of Representatives, and we do earmark, even if we just put one line in that says that we'll turn all this money and responsibility over to the administration--that is an earmark. But we can do, and we should do better.

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield for one question?

Mr. MICA. Last week, I think it was, you had come to the floor and asked me to sign a letter to the Speaker to appoint conferees and to go to conference. That's correct?