John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. In conclusion, I do want to say that I work very closely with Mr. Oberstar, the Democrat chair of the T&I Committee. When we found out that the $1.6 billion fund has a $150 million cap for emergency use, we came together last week. I offered legislation specifically to deal with that. Again, we have to act in a responsible manner for the country. We passed that. The House concurred with us. We have provided some temporary relief. Again, I'm not going to let the $1.6 billion or the $150 million be a piggy bank for BP or for any responsible parties, but we want to make certain that all of the resources are there on an emergency basis to the administration, to the Coast Guard, to whomever, so no one can say that Congress didn't act in a timely fashion. We were alerted that some of the funds were running low in that emergency portion of the $1.6 billion, which is put out in advance. So I talked a little bit before about the legislation we are looking at on liability caps, and that is what we have done in a bipartisan fashion today. We did that, and we are prepared to do even more on the caps, whatever it takes and whatever resources and assets of the government and of the private sector we can bring to bear to bring this horrible disaster under control. Thank you again for your leadership, both of our Texas Members--Mr. Carter and Mr. Olson.

Mr. MICA. Well, I will tell you right now that we are open to suggestions. We are looking at trying to be reasonable in whatever we do. To just impose unlimited caps on liability could be a very serious and damaging measure. First of all, let me say I believe that BP must be held accountable, fully accountable. Certainly, that company has the resources. They must be responsible for the cleanup. Even though there is a limit under the current 1990 statute of $75 million, they must be held accountable, far beyond that, for economic damages. What we don't want to see is that we make the terms for liability so high that only a few multinational corporations will ever be in the oil business. Small producers in Texas and throughout the gulf--there are thousands of people in business--do a good job day in and day out. 3,500 of 3,600, I believe, active rigs in the gulf are in shallow water, but they shouldn't be penalized by the failure of government or by the failure of a big corporation. Let's hold their feet to the fire. So we are going to work with the Democrats. We are going to work with the administration. We are going to try to craft something that is fair and reasonable, that holds people accountable and that holds their feet to the fire. The current fund that we have shouldn't be just a slush fund or front financing of the cleanup for BP or for any big company. That was actually set up for orphan spills or for a company that may not have the assets but that was responsible for a spill. We want that fund to continue to work, and we may need to put more funds in it to make certain that we have coverage for the future. Again, what we don't want to do is put in place insurance and liability limits that are so high that very few people can meet those requirements. So we are crafting that legislation. We want to do it in a bipartisan manner. The law does need to be altered. We should learn, and we should benefit by this horrible experience, and we should make it better and make certain that it doesn't happen again. Again, thank you for your leadership and for asking me to participate tonight.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will summarize for our side. First of all, again, this is an emergency situation. We have to act, we must act, and we will act. Let me make it clear, and I'm glad everyone on the other side has made it very clear, that BP's feet will be held to the fire to repay this money. Now, it's good to come out here and hear that BP has called the other side and told them that they're going to pay, the check is in the mail, and that's all well, fine, and good. But I'd be glad to send somebody down to OMB and show them how they can send a rapid request for payment to BP as this thing moved forward because, again, the taxpayer shouldn't be left on the hook nor should this fund be left on the hook in any way for responsibility for this cleanup. Finally, just a couple of points. It was mentioned that the Bush administration gave 4,200 leases--I think that was the figure--and that is true. It's also true, and the Democrat staff did an excellent job--I complimented them yesterday--in getting a list of the current drilling and production activities in the Gulf of Mexico, and I'll submit this to the Record. But if you look, there are about 3,500, 3,492 wells in relatively shallow water, 200 meters, about 600 feet up to the surface. There are only 25 a thousand meters below. The Obama administration, coming into office, issued--these are deepwater, 1,000 feet to 8,000 feet--more than two dozen. We'll also submit that to the Record. Now, if they knew this was a management problem in the Minerals Management Service, and I just cited the Bush administration investigated that agency for 2 years and conducted a very thorough review of what was going on, they must have known there was a management problem when they inherited it. Instead, what did they do? Faster than BP can pay their bill, they took the proposal from BP in deepwater, some of the deepest water drill--here are the number of ones that the committee found that there's deepwater drilling in--and they carte blanche, rubber-stamped approval of this outline that BP gave them. One page, April 6. Those are the facts.

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

Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman from Florida, my colleague from Florida, 30 seconds of my time.

Mr. MICA. Reclaiming the time, also keep in mind the time that I yielded to the other side when they ran out of time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. MICA. But to conclude debate, again, I thank everyone for this bipartisan effort. Even though, again, we have a minor technical glitch, we want to move the legislation forward; so I urge my colleagues to pass the measure.

Mr. MICA. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), also a senior member of the T and I Committee.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I guess as we conclude the extended time of debate on this measure to again revise some of the provisions of the emergency portion, $150 million emergency fund within the $1.6 billion Oil Liability Trust Fund, I understand that there has been identified a minor technical glitch in the legislation as it came from the other body. As a great American, former United States Senator Bob Dole, he used to say that his body, the U.S. Senate, is a great place if you like to see paint dry and grass grow, as far as the speed in which things are done. However, here they have acted with due diligence and great speed and, in that speed, have made a minor technical error. And I am not going to tell anyone about it. And because this is a situation in which we must proceed on an emergency basis, I am going to overlook it, in fairness. I would also like to yield to the gentleman, our honorable chairman of the T&I Committee, my partner, Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MICA. Well, maybe you could explain, for the benefit of this side of the aisle in the House, what the changes would be. I did have several changes that I would have liked to have addressed. I believe this particular legislation just deals with this spill. I would have hoped that we could have modified this so that, in the future, we wouldn't have to come back on an individual-spill basis to do what we are doing here today. And also, because this is a unique circumstance, we have not found ourselves in this situation before, we could make some additional changes to the measure that would, in fact, sort of, clean up the statute. But, again, I am not sure what particular parliamentary or minor technical changes the majority is prepared to make in the legislation at this time. We do want to be agreeable and move the process forward. Maybe, now, with those questions, you might respond.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is an emergency situation, and it requires emergency action by the House of Representatives. The United States Senate, the other body, has acted and sent us S. 3743, which will allow us to expand some of the use of the funds that have been accumulated in the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund on an emergency basis. I am pleased that the other body acted. This is a unique and very difficult situation dealing with a very unique and difficult national disaster. First, I would be remiss if I didn't remember today those families who will be in Washington visiting with President Obama. Eleven individuals lost their lives when the oil rig, the Horizon, exploded in April. I know the President will be meeting with them. And, on behalf of all the Members of Congress, we extend our condolences for that loss of life. Right now we are dealing with the results of that disaster. This disaster and explosion, sinking of the rig and the uncontrolled oil spill--fortunately, there has been some progress in that regard, but incredible amounts of oil have spilt into the gulf and now endangers the shores of at least four of our States. In 1990, we set up an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and that was after the Exxon Valdez. That fund has in it $1.6 billion, a substantial amount of money. Now, that fund was not set up to relieve anyone of responsibility if they are negligent, and it was also not a fund to pay for cleanup costs that are clearly assigned, clearly identifiable. A lot of it was intended for what they call an ``orphan spill,'' or a spill where you don't know where the oil came from, the polluting substance came from. Within that $1.6 billion trust fund for oil spills that we created, we have an emergency fund of $150 million that can be expended immediately. Now, what has taken place is that fund, the 150 million emergency dollars that can be spent--right now Thad Allen is doing a great job in leading the effort for the United States--and, as you know, he just retired from the Coast Guard--doing a wonderful job, but he has the responsibility of reacting now and immediately. It took some time for the administration to get him in place and also to declare this a spill of national significance, but he is on the job and he needs the resources. Now, the resources are running out. We do have a letter, which I will submit for the Record and to the Congress at this time. This is to the Speaker of the House, and it is from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. And he says, ``All the costs of this fund also that are being expended at this point must be repaid. But, at this current time, in just a matter of days, the emergency fund will run out.'' So we have documentation of the need from OMB. And just a few minutes ago, we received from the Federal on-scene coordinator the statement that their requirements to support the continuing ongoing effort will bring the emergency fund to a critically low level over the next 7 days. So we can't have the cleanup efforts come to a halt. We must act. Now, I saw the need for this yesterday and met with colleagues on my side of the aisle. We had a hearing in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Oberstar and I agreed that we must act. The Senate has acted. We have before us S. 3473. This morning, myself and other colleagues in Congress introduced H.R. 5499. That's mirror legislation. So both the Republican and Democrat House and Senate agree on the provisions of this legislation, which will allow in $100 million increments the expansion of the emergency fund. Now let me make this very clear: the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is not going to be a piggy bank for BP or for other responsible parties. This money must, should, and will be repaid. This is only a temporary measure. It is only a temporary measure, too, because the money that they are repaying goes back into that larger fund, not into the emergency fund. This legislation will correct, again, the inability of accessing a larger amount of money on a needed basis. So we have introduced mirror legislation today. This is a cooperative and bipartisan effort. However, this is a terrible disaster, and questions need to be raised about what has caused us to get to this situation. Quite frankly, I'm quite baffled about some of the administration's positions on deepwater offshore drilling. In the beginning of this year, in February, we received the budget from the President of the United States and the administration. In this budget, they proposed cuts to the Coast Guard of more than 1,000 positions. They also proposed cuts to and proposed the decommissioning of some of the ships, the helicopters and the planes that we see now involved in this very important mission. Not only did they propose cuts to the Coast Guard, our first responder, but in February they also proposed cuts to the Department of the Interior--and look this up, if you will--and to the Minerals Management Service, which is responsible for environmental reviews. This is what they proposed in February. Then in March they proposed the expansion of drilling in the gulf. I remember I and Frank LoBiondo, the ranking member, sent out a press release when we read about these cuts within the Coast Guard, and we said that this was a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, those cuts have not been enacted; and I believe, even before this oil spill, there was bipartisan support not to enact those cuts that were recommended. In light of the administration's policy to expand drilling in the gulf, some people say I've been too tough on the Obama administration. I think the Obama administration does have a responsibility in this. They did issue the permit that allowed the drilling, and I have the 1- page permit. Here is the 1-page approval: April 6, 2009, approval for deepwater drilling at 5,000 feet. I have what I call the ``deficient plan'' that they approved that was submitted by BP in March. So in less days than it took in some instances to approve now of a cleanup of proposals, they rubber-stamped and gave carte blanche approval. Let me say that I also criticized the Bush administration, but I went back and looked at what the Bush administration did with the agency that was responsible for issuing these permits. This is a memorandum from the Office of Inspector General, and it is dated September 9, 2008, which was during the Bush administration. This is what the Bush administration did in that agency that issued this permit under this new administration. This memo conveys the results of three separate Office of Inspector General investigations into allegations against more than a dozen current and former Minerals Management Service employees. I went on to read what else the Bush administration did with regard to this agency that was responsible for issuing these permits. Listen to this: Collectively, our recent work in the Minerals Management Service has taken well over 2 years. They investigated these folks. It also involved the OIG, Office of Inspector General, and Human Resources. There was an expenditure of nearly $5.3 million in OIG funds. There were 233 witnesses and subjects who were interviewed, many of them multiple times. Roughly 470,000 pages of documents were reviewed, and people were prosecuted, under the former administration, in this agency. Now, the latest reports I have, which I discussed yesterday at the hearing, were that, in fact, we have reports of inspections by this agency, the Minerals Management Service, which were supposed to be done by these officers of that Federal agency. They were actually penciled in, we believe, and those are the reports we have by oil workers, which were then inked over by these folks. It is nice for this administration to have spent time rewarding BP with safety awards in the prior year. It is nice for them to have a good working relationship with those folks who are responsible for issuing the permits, but I think we need to take a closer look at how we got ourselves into this situation. What brings us to this day when we've expended the emergency fund for cleanup that we have to take an emergency step like this? Now, I support this measure, but I'm telling you that every penny needs to be paid back. This fund, this Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that was put in place, shall not and cannot be used, as I said before, as a piggy bank for BP or for any responsible parties. Where is the money? Where is the billing? In the private sector, if you have a bill due, you pay it. As of yesterday, the staff told me that BP has been billed $69 million. As of yesterday, the information that we had is that they hadn't paid the bill. If they paid the bill, we still probably would have to be here because of the terms of the current legislation to allow access to additional money, but that money needs to go back into the trust fund, and it needs to be paid for by the responsible parties. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, June 7, 2010. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to urge the Congress to move quickly in enacting the FY 2010 Supplemental request. On June 4, 2010, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Coast Guard believes that within the next two weeks funding levels in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund's expenditure account will drop to levels that will force the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to begin to cut back Federal Deepwater Horizon response activities. We cannot allow the lack of funding to hamstring our Federal response to this national catastrophe. On May 12, the Administration proposed legislation to support the BP/Deepwater Horizon response and speed assistance to people in need. Included in this package was a provision that would permit the Coast Guard and its National Pollution Funds Center to move funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to the Emergency Fund so that the Federal response effort can continue without interruption. Specifically, the legislative changes would permit the Coast Guard to obtain additional advances in tranches of $100 million up to the incident cap for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. All of these costs are being billed to the responsible parties and the receipts will be deposited in the Trust Fund. The President has ordered Federal agencies to bring all available and appropriate resources to bear in response to this disaster. Without legislative authorization, however, the Coast Guard cannot access the additional emergency fund resources necessary to pay for the Federal agencies' response to this tragic oil spill. We appreciate your support in moving this critical legislation forward in the coming days. Sincerely, Peter R. Orszag, Director. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cao), also a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, as we recognize Memorial Day 2010, I wanted to remember each of the American Service Members from Florida's 7th Congressional District who have lost their life to hostile actions since 1996 as reported to me by the U.S. Department of Defense. Let us remember all those who have fallen in service to our Nation. Let us never forget those who have served and paid the ultimate price so that we can live in this great land. We must forever keep these heroes in our thoughts and prayers. Let us today, on Memorial Day and every day, thank the good Lord for their incredible sacrifice. They have made it possible for all Americans to live in freedom. Let us also remember and pay tribute to the families and loved ones whose loss is immeasurable. On Memorial Day and every day, let us continue in our hearts and minds to hold dearly all those who have served and are serving this Nation. May God continue to bless the United States of America. 1. Patrick Fennig, Air Force, Palm Coast--June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers. 2. Michael Heiser, Air Force, Palm Coast--June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers. 3. Brian McVeigh, Air Force, DeBary--June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers. 4. Kenneth Conde, Marines, Orlando--July 1, 2004, Iraq. 5. Jason Dwelley, Navy, Apopka--April 30, 2004, Iraq. 6. Bradley Fox, Army, Orlando--April 20, 2004, Iraq. 7. Arthur Mastrapa, Army, Apopka--June 16, 2004, Iraq. 8. Antoine Smith, Marines, Orlando--November 15, 2004, Iraq. 9. Theodore Bowling, Marines, Casselberry--November 11, 2004, Iraq. 10. Patrick Rapicault, Marines, St. Augustine--November 15, 2004, Iraq. 11. Arthur Williams, Army, Edgewater--December 8, 2004, Iraq. 12. Carlos Gil, Army, Orlando--February 18, 2005, Iraq. 13. Alwyn Cashe, Army, Oviedo--November 8, 2005, Iraq. 14. Gene Hawkins, Army, Orlando--October 12, 2006, Iraq. 15. Sean Tharp, Army, Orlando--March 28, 2006, Iraq. 16. Marco Miller, Army, Longwood--December 5, 2006, Iraq. 17. Nicholas Rogers, Army, Deltona--October 22, 2006, Iraq. 18. Angelo Vaccaro, Army, Deltona--October 3, 2006, Afghanistan. 19. John Mete, Army, Bunnell--September 14, 2007, Iraq. 20. Brandon Bobb, Army, Orlando--July 17, 2007, Iraq. 21. Sandy Britt, Army, Apopka--August 21, 2007, Iraq. 22. Alexander Rosa, Army, Orlando--May 25, 2007, Iraq. 23. Bryan Tutten, Army, St. Augustine--December 25, 2007, Iraq. 24. Adam Quinn, Army, Orange City--October 6, 2007, Afghanistan. 25. Robert Miller, Army, Oviedo--January 25, 2008, Afghanistan. 26. Jason Dahlke, Army, Orlando--August 29, 2009, Afghanistan. 27. Randy Haney, Army, Orlando--September 6, 2009, Afghanistan. 28. Anthony Davis, Army, Daytona Beach--January 6, 2009, Iraq.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 334, Motion to Table, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Motion to Recommit

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, as our country pauses to recognize National Missing Children's Day, I rise to remember one of our former colleagues, Paula Hawkins, who tirelessly championed children and children's issues and to pay tribute to this extraordinary woman by renaming the Maitland Postal Facility in her honor. Former U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins authored and helped secure enactment of the Missing Children Act in 1982 which authorized the Attorney General to collect and exchange information to identify and locate missing persons, especially children. Having served as her Chief of Staff when the legislation passed, I can say with certainty there would not be Federal missing children's statutes or the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children if it was not for Senator Hawkins' determination and tireless work. On October 13, 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed the Missing Children's Act into law, and this year marks the 28th year in national recognition of the law's passage. It is appropriate that on this day, the entire Florida Congressional Delegation join with me in introducing legislation to rename the Maitland Postal Facility at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida to bear the name of Paula Hawkins. Senator Hawkins, known as the ``Maitland Housewife'', began as a community activist in that city and went on to become the first female elected to the U.S. Senate without family connections. Paula Hawkins also has the distinction of being the first Florida statewide elected female when she won a seat in 1972 on the Public Service Commission. With her passing on December 4, 2009, we lost a remarkable public servant and trailblazer for women and all Americans in the state and national political landscape. On behalf of the Hawkins family, a grateful home state of Florida and a thankful nation, this Post Office renaming is a humble tribute to our former U.S. Senator, Paula Hawkins.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Might I first inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Rooney for introducing this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. I thank you for remembering today the missing children's law that was passed some 28 years ago. It's hard to believe time passes by, and sometimes some of the details of how laws or important changes in our legal system and our approach to issues like missing children, how things happen. I thought it would be good to come out to the floor this afternoon, and I again thank you for paying attention to the missing children law. Again, hard to believe that it's almost three decades since it's passed. I heard some of the speakers speak about the law, and I think it's important as we remember today, as we recognize the missing children's law and this anniversary, how it all came about. If you are here long enough in Congress, you find that certain people get dedicated to a proposition or to an effort or a cause and they spearhead that cause. In 1981, I had the great honor to be selected as chief of staff for United States Senator Paula Hawkins. She was probably the first woman elected to the United States Senate in her own right. She had no husband or family ties. She was just popularly elected to the U.S. Senate. She had a different set of agendas, and it was wonderful to work with her and learn from her. I knew her as a very determined woman who shook up the Public Service Commission. Everything she got ahold of she went after sort of like one of those pit bull dogs. As chief of staff, I remember calls from a gentleman by the name of John Walsh, who had lost his son, and he and his wife Reve were very distraught trying to find that child. Senator Hawkins became aware of their plight, and she took ahold of that issue and their search for their lost missing son, Adam, and she never stopped. I heard other references to children that were lost or murdered before that, but I can tell you, there would not be today or not have been in 1982 a law passed relating to missing children if it weren't for Senator Hawkins. I distinctly remember one policy meeting we had with the newly elected Senator, and she had some interesting advisers. One is well known, a national adviser, Charlie Black, a good friend of mine. Another one is a friend and political consultant many of you have heard of, Dick Morris. We were in a meeting room in her Senate office in the district in Winter Park, Florida, after Adam was missing, and John and Mrs. Walsh had asked the Senator to help find their son. And they sat in this policy meeting, and at the time they talked about national issues, Social Security, national defense, and what the Senator's priorities should be. And I will never forget at that meeting, Senator Hawkins interjected after each national issue at that time was brought up, ``And we have to do something about missing children.'' Time and time again she brought it up, and she never stopped after that until she passed the law. She guided it through the Senate, through this body, and made it become law because of her determination to make certain, and I remember her saying this, and I want this in the Record, ``If we can find a missing refrigerator or we can find a missing automobile, why shouldn't we be able to have a law that helped us find missing children?'' And so it was her determination that made this law possible some 28 years ago. It was her determination that helped to create the Center for Missing & Exploited Children. She doesn't hear this praise because she passed away last December. And during her many testimonials and obituaries, it was written she was the author of the Missing Children's Law in 1982 that President Reagan signed into law. And that, my friends, my colleagues, is the rest of the story. This law from three decades, nearly three decades later, is a result of a very determined woman who thought children should be a national priority and we should have a law that assisted when a child is lost and a national center to carry on that work. They've done a great job. John Walsh and his wife have turned unbelievable human tragedy into something positive in their effort. The loss of Adam, a great, great loss. You can't imagine parents losing their child. And I was with the Walshes in New York City when they were notified of their child's remains being found. It's something you cannot even possibly imagine as a parent. But, again, out of that tragedy came a law that's helped us find, reclaim, and account for thousands, literally thousands of missing children. So, as you pass this resolution today, I commend you. I urge my colleagues to adopt it and just wanted to provide a little background for the history and Congressional Record of how this law came about.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring special recognition to the Bach Festival Society of Winter Park, Florida. This year 2010 marks the 75th Anniversary of this significant cultural organization and its outstanding music festival. Over the past decades thousands of people have enjoyed and participated in the special event that highlights and appreciates musical performances and talented artists. This unique event which has been supported by local citizens, state and federal agencies has enriched the lives of countless individuals for three quarters of a century. This year's 75th Winter Park Bach Festival coincides with the 325th birthday of Johann Sebastian Bach. Although the composer and master of music is long departed, this extraordinary music celebration allows his work and the music of other great masters to live on and be enjoyed today. Congratulations to all those associated with and supporting this effort, including the festival's host Rollins College and its renowned Knowles Memorial Chapel. Special recognition is also well deserved for the Bach Festival Board of Trustees and its staff who work to carry on this great cultural legacy. Also it is important to highlight the Festival Society's efforts to promote a young artist's competition that ensures great talent and fosters music appreciation in our future generations. Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives join me in praising and saluting the special accomplishments and anniversary of the Winter Park Bach Festival and its society members.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Petri, our ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, for yielding me this time. I am pleased also to recognize the fine work of the current chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Costello and our chair of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar. I am here today, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, and folks, you haven't tuned in here to the comedy hour. In fact, it is almost sort of a sad time. It almost seems like a bit of a sad comedy that we are back here for the 15th time extending FAA authorization, authorization for all of the policy, Federal programs that deal with aviation, the 15th time, and this is the 13th extension. Mr. Petri is the ranking member of aviation, Mr. Costello the current chair. When I came to Congress, Mr. Oberstar was the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee and I was in the minority but a member of the committee. From 2001 to 2008, I was the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. In fact, in 2003, I wrote the current FAA authorization that has been extended some 13 times with the passage of this today. I know I did a great job and a thorough job, but I never intended it to last on and on. And it wasn't intended to last on and on. At that time we did a 4-year bill. We set the policies, the projects. We set all of the safety criteria for aviation in the country. But what particularly burns me right now is we have a commuter aviation safety piece of legislation that we intend to incorporate in this extension. We have had it done for some time. We worked in a bipartisan fashion; and that sits idle. We sat down in a bipartisan fashion after we had a number of disastrous commuter flights, one up in New York, and our heart aches for those families who have suffered the loss of a loved one. We had a responsibility to pass that legislation; and that legislation, which is part of the extension, is still sitting today undone. But again, 15 times we have been here. This is the 13th extension. This goes on to July of a bill that I authored back in 2003 that expired in 2007. And it couldn't come at a worse time for the economy. We need in place that policy. We need the funding formula in place. We need the ability to move and expand our airports which are our main transportation hub of today and the future. The modernization of the air traffic control system and the provisions that we put in this to move that forward are also stalled, it's called NextGen, next-generation air traffic control. This is very sad. When you stop and think about it, 11 percent of the economy of the United States of America deals around the aviation industry. This is big business, it's big jobs, and, unfortunately it's stalled. And that's sad. I'm not here to point fingers. The House has done due diligence. The other body continues to work on the measure. They've made some progress of late. There are some issues in here, one that's called the FedEx provision, which does expand some unionization provisions if it is passed. Quite frankly, the Senate has said that provision is not going to be accepted. Many on the House oppose this on both sides of the aisle. Let's take the controversial things, put them aside, and move forward with the bill. Foreign repair stations. We cannot abrogate our obligations under international treaties. We can't leave planes in some foreign location without the ability to repair them. So we have to have a reasonable standard and an internationally coherent and internationally compliant way to proceed for repair stations. Those controversial provisions need to be put aside. Move forward. People are crying out for jobs in this country, and one of the best employers that we have in this Nation is the aviation industry. It pays some of the highest salaries, and we have the potential for expanding that. When you expand aviation, you enter global markets with such ease today, but we are leaving that behind. So I am, indeed, deeply saddened that we are not at a point where we are passing this. Now, I ask Members to support this extension, the 13th extension. This is a very embarrassing moment for the Congress, and I'm sad that our work is not done.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I think we've reached a bipartisan accord. I support the gentlewoman from Maine and also the gentleman from Texas who have offered this amendment. I did not have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak during the general debate. I was delayed. After saying that our side does support this pending amendment, which, in the absence of the sponsors is being offered by the chair of the committee, I do want to take this opportunity to, first of all, thank Mr. Oberstar, our chair, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Arkansas, who has conceded time and is doing an incredible job in heading up our side of the aisle on a very important issue, which is water resources for the Nation. So, Mr. Boozman, thank you for your cooperation, and thank you to the chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Johnson from Texas. A lot of times when I go back home and people say, Well, Congress doesn't work well, and Congress does this and Congress does that or they are always fighting and bickering, it's good to be a part of the committee, of the largest committee in Congress, I might add-- Transportation and Infrastructure--which has six subcommittees and a very important one here, Water Resources. Water Resources controls all of the major water projects in the country--dams, levees. In this case, we are the stewards for the Nation and, really, for what the good Lord gave us, which is our estuaries. Most people don't know much about estuaries, but we do have that responsibility to make certain that they are preserved, that they are protected, and that we do the best with the money that is given to us on behalf of the taxpayers to protect that part of nature and our ecological system that, again, is so vital. I do want to thank Mr. Boozman and the chairs of the full committee and subcommittee for their work because we are here together to pass this in a bipartisan manner. So, on a day when many people are coming here to protest some of the things that do go on in Washington--big spending and taxation on the day we just are all paying out to the Federal Government--this is an example of a cooperative effort. Let me also say, too, as the Republican leader of the Transportation Committee, many people have been coming to me in the last hours and have been saying, Mr. Mica, how are you going to vote on this bill? This bill does represent an increase in funding. Now, you are probably looking at one of the most conservative Members of Congress. They listed 435 Members, and I was listed as No. 58 in the last week or so as far as fiscal conservative voting, and I take great pride in that because I worked hard for my money. I know people out there have worked hard to make a living and have struggled to feed their families and to just make ends meet. At this time, we have got to be particularly mindful of taxpayer dollars. From time to time, there are areas in which we need to spend a few more dollars, and we are talking about a few dollars. We're not talking about billions. I do know millions add up to billions, but in this instance we have invested very little, and in this instance this is a very clear Federal responsibility. This is where seawater and freshwater meet. And certainly if there is an area of responsibility, that is a Federal responsibility. The States cannot nationally be responsible for waters that flow through many jurisdictional boundaries. So here is an arch fiscal conservative coming before Congress on a day in which we are all concerned about government spending and saying, yes, we should invest a few dollars more in something that, again, is God given, the fragile ecosystem that has been handed to us and we have to be good stewards of. So I am going to vote ``yes'' for this amendment; and when the bill comes up you are going to see me vote ``yes'' for the bill, even though it does increase spending from $35 million to $50 million.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have been married for 38 years. I have a wonderful wife. I fell in love with her almost at first sight. We have been together for three, almost four decades. Probably the one I spend the most time with other than my wife is Mr. Oberstar in my work on the committee. We have been together on the committee for my 18 years. He has been there for 32, a lot longer. Now, with my wife from time to time I do have disagreements, like just about every day on some issue. This happens to also be with Mr. Oberstar sort of like that marital relation, that I would disagree both with my good friend and colleague Mr. Oberstar and also my colleague from Michigan. I think that on this, this isn't worth burning the house over, and I think the gentleman is offering an amendment that is well intended, and he has a sincere interest in protecting freshwater estuaries. A definition was cited about freshwater estuaries. And yes, there are probably thousands, maybe millions of freshwater estuaries. That is the whole point here is we are expanding a limited definition of marine estuaries that have saltwater. And one of the justifications for this whole program at the Federal level is the sea does encompass the entire perimeter of our coastal areas, particularly Florida, which we have some of the biggest coastline. We have many places where fresh and saltwater mix. And that is the importance of this particularly important but very small Federal program. The argument here isn't increasing this billions, we are going from $35 to $50 million in a program. And it is important that the additional money not be so diluted. So while I support the gentleman in what he would like to do with freshwater estuaries, I don't think that this expansion is appropriate when we are looking at including the body of freshwater estuaries. We do have a disagreement on this. And I do support the bill in general. I do take deference with this particular amendment.