John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Yes, they do. So I will be here when Homeland Security cows come marching through the pasture here and try to make the changes that are necessary. We have discussed with your staff the changes that we believe are necessary. But I don't have that jurisdiction; I wish I did. But I am doing all I can to work with the Appropriations Committee. Your professionals are doing all they can within the limitations of your jurisdiction. I am doing my little oversight bit, and then we have the Homeland Security Committee that will march forward with their authorization. And I will be here for that parade.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do want to apologize to the members of the committee because we want to make certain that if we offer the amendment that it was in the proper form as originally drafted. It was on a previous page. And I understand from the Parliamentarian that we could only do a limitation at this particular stage. So that's why I had the time to explain and striking the last word, my position and some of the history of my involvement with this. It's not that I'm just a Johnny-come-lately on the floor to do some mischief with TSA. It's that I helped to actually create the agency. I want it to be effective. I want taxpayer money to be properly expended. But when I see the results--and I've seen the way the TSA operates. They started with 16,500 screeners on 9/11. And what failed on 9/11 was not the private screeners. It was the Federal Government, because the Federal Government failed to put in place the rules, the protocols, the standards and the levels of operation. They were stalling for years, I found out, and never put them in place. And that's something we had to do. But what we did is, again, we set up two models. And airports have had the right to opt out from the very beginning and go to private screening under Federal supervision. Now, we've been there. We've seen how it works. We have entire States that have said that they want the opportunity to have the second model, which has proven to be most cost effective, not just from dollars and cents, but also from efficiency and effectiveness in operation. This is all about the performance of TSA, and the models that have been independently tested will show you that private screeners, under Federal supervision, again, proper oversight, setting the rules, they perform better. So the purpose of this is to set aside some of that money. TSA came in, and I think that the administrator, while well intended, was kept in the dark and fed a lot of mushrooms on what happens with these programs. And in order to justify 3,700 positions, administrative positions in Washington, D.C., just in Washington, D.C., 3,700 positions making on average $105,000 a person--imagine that, what we've created--and another 8,000-plus administrators out in the field, but to justify those positions, what they did was they fudged--and GAO has also confirmed this--the facts on the cost of the private operation, again, under Federal supervision of passenger screening. So all this does--it doesn't take any money out of TSA--is it gives the administrator the discretion to have that money, and he can use it for screening. And we believe that with the pending applications, which this bill and your bill helps open up, we want to make certain that there are adequate funds available to do it in the most cost-effective manner. And that's what my amendment provides for. So, again, the whole point of this is doing the best possible job for security. And stop and think about this: this bill provides $3 billion- plus just for screening, 3 billion. I think the total of this bill is, what, $8 billion, staff? The entire bill is 46. But just for TSA is how much? 7.8, close to $8 billion for TSA's operation. And I wouldn't begrudge them a penny if it, in fact, were used properly for the security of our Nation to make certain that people are safe in the skies. But I'm saying that this amendment does make certain that for a very cost-effective means of providing passenger screening, we can do a better job. We'll have the money available, and we won't rely on just the all-Federal model. So I urge support for this amendment and your consideration. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MICA. Again, I would love nothing more than to have the jurisdiction. I do not have the jurisdiction. I do have jurisdiction for some oversight, which we have assumed.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank the members of the committee for allowing me to bring forth this amendment, also the Rules Committee for allowing me to have it considered by the House. This is a simple amendment, and this is an amendment that I almost think I'm offering not on behalf of myself but on behalf of our troops. I usually don't get involved in armed services matters, but I did have the opportunity to visit our troops in Afghanistan in March of some weeks past. And I was out in some of the forward operating positions in Afghanistan, and I asked the troops a question--you know, sometimes you get a few minutes of quiet time with our troops that are serving us out there in those dangerous areas out there. And I said, When I return to Congress, what could I do to help you do a better job? What would assist you? And every one of them said to me, Mr. Mica, could you change the rules of engagement? So I'm offering this amendment on their behalf and on behalf of all the servicemen and -women who should be able to defend themselves in hostile areas. I'm not trying to micromanage the military, but I have just a basic provision that says--and let me read it: ``The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the rules of engagement applicable to members of the armed services assigned to duty in any hostile fire area''--and we have a definition for that--``shall,'' and then ``one, fully protect the members' rights to bear arms; and, two, to authorize the members to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.'' The Secretary would set those parameters. This is my amendment. I believe that implementing a successful calendar insurgency strategy should not come at the cost of needlessly increasing American or coalition military casualties. If we ask members of our Armed Forces to risk their lives to protect the home front, we must do all we can to help them with the material and the options and the ability to preserve their lives to fight on our behalf in hostile areas. Please help me in arming our Armed Forces and also providing them with what I believe is the opportunity to adequately defend themselves in hostile theaters. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MICA. Let me say that the United States Congress does set the policy for engaging in war and hostile actions. The Secretary of Defense has clearly given the authority here to provide, again, applicable provisions for how this would apply. In closing, our troops, our servicemen and -women, should not be used at target practice in any hostile theater. They should be given the basic right to bear arms and defend themselves. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sharon K. Fawcett, the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, who is retiring after more than 34 years of outstanding public service to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). On February 28, 2011, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a joint hearing with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to highlight the importance of our presidential libraries to our nation's history. Following the hearing, I was pleased to host a luncheon and symposium to further discuss how we can ensure these national treasures can be preserved efficiently. Ms. Fawcett was instrumental in helping to make that day productive and successful and her insight at the symposium added a tremendous amount of knowledge to our discussion. Her love and commitment to the Presidential Library system developed at an early age: she was born in Abilene, Kansas in a house that is now part of the campus of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library. In 1969, Ms. Fawcett started working at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library. After raising her young children, she returned to the National Archives in Washington, DC, to be Chief of the Reference Service Branch and later the Director of User Services. In these jobs she was responsible for the overall planning, development, direction, coordination, staffing and control of all research rooms in both the National Archives building in downtown Washington, DC, and at Archives II, NARA's state-of-the-art facility in College Park, Maryland. She returned to the Office of Presidential Libraries in 1997. Ms. Fawcett has served as Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries for the past seven years and as Deputy Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries for seven years before that. In both roles she led the Library system in the development of award-winning educational programs, web sites, and exhibits. Under her leadership, the Libraries continued to open key Presidential materials--such as the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon tape recordings--that help the public understand Presidents and Presidential decision-making. The multi- library conferences on such topics as Vietnam and the Nuclear Age have become a mainstay of C-SPAN programming. She also developed innovative initiatives to start staffing early for a Presidential Library, and to add additional staffing for the newer Presidential Record Act Libraries to try to meet the growing demand for their records. When she returned to Presidential Libraries in 1997, there were no women serving as library directors and almost no representation by minorities in library positions. She pursued a goal of building a more representational work force in the libraries, hiring a more diverse and representative workforce. I congratulate Sharon K. Fawcett for her dedication in building strong and productive relationships with a variety of stakeholders that includes the White House, Congress, and Presidential Library foundations. I thank her for her service to the National Archives and to the Nation and I wish her a very happy and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 7, 2011 a Central Florida soldier lost his life in service to our nation from wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire in Logar Province while assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based in Fort Drum, New York. Specialist Buzinski joined the U.S. Army in August of 2006. Once he completed his training at Fort Benning, Georgia, he was stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, then Fort Polk, Louisiana, where he deployed with his unit in October 2010 after previously serving in Iraq from September 2007 to November 2008. Specialist Buzinski's impressive list of awards and decorations include the Bronze Star; Purple Heart; Army Commendation Medal; Army Achievement Medal; Valorous Unit Award; Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Afghanistan Campaign Medal; Iraq Campaign Medal; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Army Service Ribbon; two Overseas Service Ribbons; NATO Medal; and Combat Infantryman Badge. We shall never forget the ultimate sacrifice Specialist Buzinski has given for his country. His actions will serve as an everlasting reminder of the dedication and sacrifice the members of our nation's armed services make every day. Specialist Buzinski is survived by his wife, two children, sister, mother and father.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?

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 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. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. MICA. Unfortunately, I have to strongly disagree with my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Illinois, on this amendment. What's proposed as fairness is really probably the height of unfairness. We've had 75 years of rule and law in which to organize. In the transportation sector, you had to have a majority of all of the individuals that worked there, all the people that would be potential members, and a majority of those folks would have to vote in the union, and I have no problem with union representation. The President packed the board of the National Mediation Board, and on a 2-1 vote, they changed 75 years of ruling. Now, what's particularly unfair, and the dirty little secret in all this is, they didn't change it to decertify to shed the union. They left it so you still have to have all majority plus one of all of the members. So this is not fair by any means. We should allow unionization. We should allow votes of it; but for those again who are affected who have to pay the dues, who have to abide by the union rules and regulations that they set, it's not fair. So I wish this was crafted in a different way for fairness, but it's not. So, again, they upset 75 years in which it worked very well. In fact, they told me today that under the 75 years, you had a larger number than most recent votes under this rule. I think it's 50 percent to 70 percent, something like that. So, if you really want to favor unionization in a fair way, let's have it the way it worked for many years and oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The manager's amendment is pretty simple. First of all, we have tried to accommodate as many Members as we could with their requests and include on both sides of the aisle provisions that they requested that weren't in the original submission. Additionally, the manager's amendment makes technical corrections to provisions in the underlying bill, including those related to unmanned aircraft systems, ADS-B readiness verification, flight attendant fatigue, FAA access to criminal records databases, and also, as Mr. Coble said, who was with us earlier, just a small accommodation for another Member who wanted musical instruments, some provisions again in the bill. So we have tried to accommodate many of the Members who have had these questions. The manager's amendment also contains provisions regarding public- private partnerships to advance NextGen. If the government does it, it usually doesn't get done. If we have public-private partnerships and closely monitor that, we can have great success, reduce costs, and bring technology online that makes it even safer for people to fly at lower costs and with less personnel. We have protections for voluntary safety data submissions. We also have a provision that is very important for the European Union Emissions Trading scheme. This is very important, because they are trying to close us down or tax us as we enter some of their airspace. We have agreements at the airport for new revenue liability protections for volunteer pilot organizations, for public benefit flights, and also for privacy protections for airspace users, and also, finally, the safe shipment of lithium batteries. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, March 31, 2011. Hon. John L. Mica, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in preparing the Manager's amendment to H.R. 658, the ``FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011.'' As you know, the amendment includes provisions related to the Freedom of Information Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. Finally, I request that you include this letter and your response in the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Darrell Issa, Chairman.

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

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. I reserve the balance of my time. Maybe the gentleman has a little response to my support for his amendment.