John Mica

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Reminding everyone that we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. MICA. First of all, I greatly respect the gentleman's intent. I strongly favor the disclosure of fees by airlines. I think that fees ought to be refunded when bags arrive late, damaged, or just lost. However, as drafted, the amendment goes far beyond that and allows, again, some unfairness to contractual agreements, first of all, with global distribution systems and ticket agents. This requirement tips the scales in favor of global distribution systems and their business relationships with airlines, and global distribution systems are not charitable organizations. They're owned by private equity firms, hedge funds, and exist to make money in the travel industry, and we would tip the balance in this requirement for them. I favor part of what the gentleman's trying to do, but as crafted, I have to oppose the amendment because of that provision. 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. 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. I actually will support the amendment, but I wanted to give the gentlelady an additional minute to conclude if she had any remarks. As I said, we're very willing to work with her on her next amendment, and hope she would consider working with us. We will support this amendment. I would like to yield, if I may, Mr. Chairman, as much time as she needs to finish her statement.

Mr. MICA. I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MICA. I do not. But I was hoping to hear that the gentleman from Puerto Rico would be willing to work with me on his other amendment. And I'm sure he will. But I still will support his amendment because I'm that kind of a guy. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MICA. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in representing so well the people of Puerto Rico. Also, again, Governor Fortuno, who preceded the current delegate. I talked to them about this situation, and they do indeed have an essential air problem. He cited Vieques and Culebra, for example, and I know even during the recent season they had ferry boat interruption service. There's no other way to get back and forth. And this does constitute Essential Air Service. As I have said to the gentlewoman and the gentleman from North and South Dakota and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and now to the gentleman with Puerto Rico, I commit to work with them and will try to address their concerns. He has my commitment in that regard. I understand he's going to withdraw his amendment, and I'm grateful for his cooperation and pledge to work with him. I yield back the balance my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in opposition. I ask unanimous consent to control the time.

Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, the legislation before us now, as the Chair has indicated, is the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. During the discussion on the rule which brought the measure to the floor, I had an opportunity to speak on the fairness of the rule, and again I'll cite: Having been here for a number of years and observed the process for three decades, I rarely find any time in which everyone has had a fair opportunity to offer amendments. Some 48 amendments were offered before the Rules Committee. Thirty-three were accepted. Nine were withdrawn. So there are only six that were not considered--some for germaneness reasons, some for being duplicative--and also, in fairness, for Members to have an opportunity to participate. So, again, I think the process that we have come forward with is very, very fair. The process has been fair and bipartisan in the committee. In the last 4 years, as the ranking Republican, Republican leader of the committee, I can count on probably less than three fingers the number of votes that we had over the 4 years. We had many more votes than that in the committee. It was an open process and people had the opportunity to participate. I also spoke in the rule of how we got ourselves in this predicament. I had the honor and privilege of being the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee after the beginning of 9/11 and through the fateful time of 9/11 for 6 years. In 2003, we passed the last authorization for FAA. Now, in order to operate the Federal Government and each of its agencies and activities, the Congress must authorize the programs, the policies, the agencies, the funding formulas, and the projects that are eligible for Federal participation. As I also stated, the other side of the aisle for 4 years had huge majorities, could pass anything that they wanted to. Very large majority in the House, large majority in the Senate. And the last 2 years, indeed, they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. They could pass anything they wanted. In 2007, the bill that I helped author, a 4-year authorization, expired. They did 17 extensions in 4 years. It's no wonder people don't have jobs. It's no wonder that people in the aviation industry don't know which way the Federal Government is coming or going. It's no wonder that you have some disarray in one of our most important agencies, the FAA. They had 4 years; we've had less than 4 months. We're bringing the bill out. We've had a fair process in the committee, and we've had opportunity for people to offer amendments and will spend most of today and maybe part of tomorrow going through those amendments in, I think, an adequate time for debate. The bill does make some reductions in spending and it does take us back to the 2008 level of spending. Now, the first thing you will hear from the other side is, Oh, the Republicans are cutting and slashing important FAA programs and safety and security and everything under the sun will be at risk. I can tell you that that's not the case. I can tell you that you can do more with less, and we can prioritize. In fact, in this bill, to make certain that safety is our primary concern--and it must be our primary concern--we have put specific provisions in here that if there are cuts or reductions--and heaven knows the FAA and the Department of Transportation certainly can have reductions in bureaucratic staffing. My dad used to say when he was alive, ``Son, it's not how much you spend; it's how you spend it.'' And it's just like that with personnel. People say, well, we're not going to have enough air traffic controllers. We just had the incident out at Reagan. We had an air traffic controller with some 20 years' experience, 17 years at DCA, came to work I guess at 10 o'clock. There was somebody there until almost 10:30. So I understand he was there an hour and 28 minutes and either fell asleep or wasn't doing his duty. So, in Washington, what do they do? We've got to double up. We've got to have more employees. Listen to this statistic. Since before 2001, we have a 21 percent decrease. If we go to 2001 to today, we have a 21 percent decrease in air traffic movements. Why? Because the industry has consolidated. We don't have as many flights. The economy is down. At the same time, we have an increase in 20 percent of staffing. If you look at airports around the country, you will see some with huge reductions in air traffic and still the same number of air traffic controllers. In this bill, we give some flexibility so you can hopefully move people around. Now, I know there are labor agreements and it's hard to get people to move, and some people might not like the warm climes and beauty of Florida where the population has expanded--and Arizona and wherever else we need them--but, for heaven's sake, do we need to double up? Do we need to double up when there's no air traffic at these airports between midnight and 5 a.m.? That's the Washington big spending, big government. Let's add more. So I can tell you that there's plenty of room for doing things responsibly, doing things with safety in mind. Now let's try a new approach with the best interests of the taxpayer. They've spent some $5.3 billion in about 24 months more than we take in. We're on the verge of having our financial security of this Nation at risk and also threatening even the defense security of this Nation. Again, 17 times they did these little hiccup extensions, costing millions of dollars. Just ask the FAA administrator; the recalculation, all the things that had to be done; the inability to move forward with safety programs, for that matter. So I just want to make the point that we can accomplish what we've set out: a reduction in spending and, actually, better performance and better safety. I could give more examples. I don't have a lot of time. We used to chase developmental programs, and the government would try to develop technology for air traffic control, and they take forever. And the private sector would develop technologies. They do it sooner, faster, better, with more capability, while we're still spending billions of dollars recklessly. And we reduced, actually, the amount of money in those developmental programs, and we actually have put out there the technology faster, better. So there are many areas, and I can't spend all my time talking about them. This is a job creation bill. 9.2 percent of the gross domestic activity in this Nation depends on this industry. We count on this. As I said, in less than 4 months, the other body, the Senate, has already passed the bill. We're ready to go to conference. We've asked for one extension to accomplish this. And this bill has excellent provisions. Finally, you will hear them moan and groan about some labor provision that someone described that we're taking away democratic rights and all of this for union members. It couldn't be further from the truth. We have had 70-some years of rules organizing for labor where we've always had a majority of those who were affected have to vote in a union. Now they want to change it to whoever shows up. They have multiple elections. And that's what they're asking for. The little caveat here--and I hope everyone is listening, Madam Chair. What they didn't do is to decertify to get out of the union. They left the old rule in place. There has to be a majority of everyone who's affected. They'll tell you that they didn't let women vote and all this a long time ago, try to mix up the topic at hand and confuse people, but you can't think of a more unfair rule than a packed National Mediation Board has enacted. Unfair, easy to enter in, cut the provisions for entering in, and then put a barrier up to get out. Again, I think this is an excellent program. It gives us opportunities to look at contract towers and then air traffic control, NextGen, the next generation of air traffic control. We can do better. We can get technology in place. We'll probably have to use fewer people. And we'll always know where the planes are if we can move this legislation forward that, again, has been on the shelf for some 4 years. There are excellent provisions in this legislation. I feel confident that it deserves the support of the House, and we'll have fair and open debate on amendments. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC, March 29, 2011. Hon. John Mica, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. H.R. 658 was favorably reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on March 10, 2011 and sequentially referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and, accordingly, I will waive further consideration of this bill in Committee. This, of course, being conditional on our mutual understanding that Title X of the legislation reported by your Committee will be removed from the legislation and provisions regarding research and development activities at the Federal Aviation Administration developed by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will be included in the legislation considered on the Floor. However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as waiving, reducing or affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Further, I request your support in the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology during any House-Senate conference convened on this, or any similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter and your response be placed in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this important legislation. Sincerely, Ralph M. Hall, Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Again, I think the gentlelady's intentions are honorable, and I know she is trying to make certain that we are safe and secure. However, the way the amendment is crafted with actually requiring three air traffic controllers all the time in the top 20 as far as traffic, first of all, I would say it doesn't achieve her goals. First of all, all of those, we have a list of them, have at least two air traffic controllers. Some of them have very few flights. This doesn't answer the problem that they had at Ronald Reagan Airport. There was a period of time when they have no traffic at many of these airports, so what she would be doing the way this is crafted is requiring at least three all the time, when we have two already, and requiring an additional one. These are not cheap, easy-to-come-by air traffic controllers. They earn, on average, $163,000. Where I need to put them is where I have the air traffic. We always are required by labor organizations and by FAA to staff to traffic. So her amendment, while maybe well-intended, it actually achieves the opposite. All of these, every one that she mentioned, has at least two, and then I would be adding more people when they have no traffic as opposed to putting them where I need them where they have traffic. I understand she is going to withdraw the amendment. I would be glad to work with her. We do have provisions in here that will help us, I think, with some of the personnel movement and questions of professionalism and competency and training that will address some of the shortfalls we have seen from a limited number of FAA air traffic controllers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to allow them to submit their remarks. We are taking the amendment, and I know she is going to work with us. I would also be pleased to yield to our colleague from Hawaii.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, first I have no objection to the amendment. And the sense of Congress the gentleman from California offers that FAA should enter into discussions with the Santa Monica Airport for the purpose of runway safety is justified. This is a safety issue. It's important that we address it. And from our side, I would support it.

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

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

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. I have done my best to meet with some of the affected parties here. And I have the greatest respect for those who have brought this proposal forward. I talked to Mr. Schiff, Mr. Berman, and others. They have a good intention. They want to protect the airports and the constituents that they represent. However, what they propose is--again, I had to look at this very carefully to see the consequences of what they propose and how it would affect all of us. Prior to 1990--I think that's where he wants to take us back to--we didn't have a regulation for a standard airport noise control Federal law. Congress enacted a law. And they did this because we get into the situation that any airport could impose various flight restrictions. And what you do is start closing down a national system because, again, you have no consistent regulation. And we set up a procedure in that law. Now, it is true that Bob Hope had applied, spent money, and then was denied. Van Nuys has never applied. And Bob Hope can go back and apply. If we open this up and we start taking airport by airport and granting certain levels of activity in time, we start destroying a national aviation system. So that's why we put the Act in place. It has a manner in which to proceed. I'm glad this came up because maybe it is an Act that we need to look at. I don't want communities to have to spend a great deal of money to go through this process or spend a great deal of time. Maybe we need to look at amending the Airport Noise Control Act of 1990 to be fair to communities. But I'm telling you, if we open this door, then we have a problem. Again, Van Nuys has never even sought the remedy. So to come to Congress and ask for this exemption at this point on behalf of the entire aviation system--and my responsibility is to, again, everyone who contributes to our national aviation system--I can't concur with, and I have to oppose this amendment at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 658 and include extraneous materials in the Congressional Record.