John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. I have requested $2.4 million in the FY 09 Defense Appropriations bill, Research, Development, Test And Evaluation, Navy, account for Electronic Warfare Associates. The entity to receive funding for this project is Electronic Warfare Associates, 250 International Parkway, Suite 240, Lake Mary, Florida, 32746. The FY 2009 funding will develop the necessary software tools for coordinated mission planning and mission rehearsal, common training tools, and consistent concepts of operations and tactics to ensure Marines are fully integrated between air and ground and can seamlessly operate in any theater with any service or coalition partner. Results from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq all point to the critical need to better fuse data and coordinate action between Marine Corps air and ground EW elements. The necessity for integrated action and the essential nature of coordinated and uniform application of EW assets has become a focal point for the Marine Corps. The plan to resolve this serious shortfall is known as MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force) EW 2020. The basic Marine Corps fighting organization is a MAGTF. A MAGTF is sized according to the mission and can vary from a battalion to an entire division. It is a complete fighting unit that includes all combat elements--air, ground, and support. Electronic warfare is integral. The EA-6B Prowler provides airborne EW while Radio Battalions provide ground EW via equipment such as CESAS (Communication Emitter Sensing and Attacking System). They are supported by various planning and processing capabilities, such as TEAMS (Tactical EA-6B Mission Planning System) and TERPES (Tactical Electronic Reconnaissance Processing and Evaluation System). Despite being integral to a MAGTF, the current coordinated and standardized training, tactics, procedures and integration of the air and ground USMC EW elements is rudimentary, as is coordination with Air Force and Navy EW units. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. I have requested $450,000 in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill FEMA Predisaster Mitigation Account for the retrofitting of Crescent City High School in Putnam County. The entity to receive this funding is Putnam County located at 410 St. Johns Ave., Palatka, FL 32177. These funds will be used to retrofit the high school to serve as an emergency shelter during a hurricane, and to provide the school with the necessary generator to ensure that the shelter has the needed power during and following a storm. With Florida's unique tendency of experiencing frequent hurricanes, wildfires and other natural disasters, there is currently no way to sufficiently accommodate Northeast Florida residents who have lost, or are forced to evacuate, their homes. When these catastrophes occur, emergency management services are forced to create temporary means to house, feed and provide the basic necessities of life for those who have been rendered helpless. The local high school in Crescent City is used as a shelter but is not a certified hurricane shelter. The only way to evacuate the area northbound is over a bridge on U.S. Hwy 17 that the FDOT closes when winds exceed 40 mph. As a result many of the most vulnerable people who live in mobile homes are stranded. In 2008 Putnam County was rated by the State of Florida to have a shelter deficit. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. I have requested $300,000 in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill FEMA State and local Programs Account for the town of Pomona Park Emergency Operations Center. The entity to receive this funding is the Town of Pomona Park located at 109 Worcester Street, Pomona Park, FL 32181-0001. The funds for this project will be used to expand the current fire station which serves as the Emergency Operations Center in Pomona Park in order to make room for new equipment and provide room for emergency service coordination during a severe storm. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. I have requested $800,000 for the Mobile Medic Training Program which I requested be included in the FY 09 Defense Appropriations bill, Research, Development, Test And Evaluation, Army, account for Engineering and Computer Simulations. The entity to receive funding for this project is Engineering and Computer Simulations, 7770 S. Hwy. U.S. 1 Suite H, Bunnell, FL 32110. The funds appropriated in this bill will be used entirely for the research and development of a training simulation tool that will enhance the overall effectiveness of combat medical training by providing realistic casualty information through the utilization of a hand held PDA. The Mobile Medic Training Program, through the utilization of a hand held PDA, will provide realistic casualty information that allows the combat medic to practice medical treatments, thus bridging the gap between virtual and live environments. This training simulation tool will enhance the overall effectiveness of combat medical training by providing realistic casualty information through the utilization of a hand held PDA. Currently, mobile computing technology, in the form of a hand held PDA that offers advice on diagnosis and treatment, provides medical reference material and tracks soldier treatment, is being used by combat medics. The Mobile Medic Training Program, through the utilization of a hand held PDA, will provide realistic casualty information that allows the combat medic to practice medical treatments, thus bridging the gap between virtual and live environments. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act. I have requested $4.8 million for the Gateway System in the FY 09 Defense Appropriations bill, Navy Procurement account for the Gateway System manufactured by Ocean Design, Inc., located at 1026 North Williamson Boulevard in Daytona Beach, Florida 32114. The funding would be used for the Navy's procurement of the Gateway System. This project benefits the constituents in my district. This system has been developed for the Navy to provide a ``system of systems'' approach to seeing and sensing the ocean floor; subsurface and surface of the littorals. The Gateway System is a fiber and electrical cable interconnect system that provides any number of electro-optical inputs and outputs to static or dynamic subsea assets such as acoustical sensors, detection sensors, video cameras and power docking stations. The Gateway acts as a hub for information and/or power centric activity in the underwater battle space and acts as an underwater networking tool that allows different units to communicate and share information. The system will be instrumental in enhancing maritime domain awareness and securing maritime approaches.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. At this time, I do not. I would like to close on my side, but I know that you get to close.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm just sitting here, thinking that sometimes you have ideas, you know, that you come up with, that you think about and that you dream about that have an opportunity to become reality. I've got one in this bill. Will it work? Honestly, I don't know. I've given it my best try, but my intent has been to try to take the things I've seen around the world, the best from them, and adapt them to the United States of America, this great country where, I don't think, anything is impossible. When I see other countries that have high-speed rail systems which take people from one end of their land to the other, I think about our country and think: Why not? Why can't we? We wouldn't be here today if it weren't, again, for the cooperative effort of my counterpart, Mr. Oberstar--our Chair of the T&I Committee--and for the two of us and others--Mr. Shuster and Ms. Brown--all working together. In closing, I do want to just thank a couple of other people. I didn't know Mayor Bloomberg very well when I took this idea to him in New York City. New York, of course, is at the center of the east coast, at the center of the Northeast Corridor. I explained the proposal to him. I said that we'd like to see high-speed rail. Right now, from Washington to New York, on average, Acela runs at 83 miles an hour. On average from New York to Boston, it runs at 66 miles an hour. I said, ``Mayor, what if we could go from Washington, D.C. to Center City New York in less than 2 hours? What would that do?'' Of course, his eyes lit up, and he endorsed the proposal. It would make a dramatic change in the Northeast Corridor. I chaired Aviation for 6 years. I remember the congestion we had in 2001. The congestion is back today. Seventy percent of all of the air traffic control delays in the country emanate from New York City. So, if we could, let's put in place high-speed rail in this corridor. I don't know any other transportation solution that's more cost effective and environmentally sound than what we're proposing here tonight. Again, here, the leader of our largest city endorsed the proposal. Then I went to Mike Castle. Congressman Castle is the former Governor of Delaware. He heads the Rail Caucus in the House. I explained it to him, and he supported the proposal. Then I went to folks like Susan Molinari, who was our Chair, who tried to reform Amtrak when she was here, and she supported the proposal. Now, as a Republican, I come to the floor also to thank America's rail labor unions and their employees. When I had the opportunity to sit down and say you've seen your employment dwindle from 28,000 to 19,000 on Amtrak and that you've seen proposals to zero out your budgets, just saying ``no'' is not the answer both on your side and on our side. We can do better and we must do better. I want to thank America's rail unions for working together to make this possible. In working together, we can expand employment, and we can improve transportation. We can develop that corridor and can make it a shining asset, something we can all be proud of in development along the way. So we'll create jobs and opportunities both in their industry and along that corridor. So, in closing, I also want to thank some of the folks from the Federal Railroad Administration, including Jo Strang, Grady Cothen, Mark Yachmetz, and Mark Lindsay. They provided us valuable technical assistance. I want to also thank the committee staffers who worked in a bipartisan way on the bill on the Democrats' side: David Heymsfeld, Jennifer Esposito, John Drake, and Niels Knutson. On our Republican side, I want to thank Jim Coon, our staff director for the committee; Amy Steinmann, our policy director; Joyce Rose; Mike Meenan; and Allison Cullin for all of their hard work. You don't get here by one person's coming up with an idea or by one person's trying to move a proposal or by one person's trying to dominate the legislation. You come here through the concerted effort of many people joining together. So, in closing, again, I thank Mr. Oberstar and all of those. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, first I have to say, again, as Mr. Oberstar said, this is a very historic moment for passenger rail service in the United States. I have to first preface any comments I would make by expressing my sincere thanks to Mr. Oberstar, my partner on the Transportation Committee and our Chair; Ms. Brown, who chairs the Rail Subcommittee, my colleague from Florida; and also Mr. Shuster, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is the ranking Republican member on the Rail Subcommittee. I would be remiss if I did not also thank staff on both sides of the aisle for their tireless effort to bring us to this point today. Mr. Oberstar and I sat down when we assumed responsibility for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and we set out some goals that we hoped to achieve. This is one of the final goals that we felt was important. And it's not a Republican issue, it's not a Democrat issue, it's not a liberal, it's not a conservative. It's an issue that affects the transportation system as we know as a Nation and it hopefully, with the action today, will take us into the 21st century. This is one of the most historic occasions because the Congress has not been able to pass an Amtrak reauthorization for some 11 years, since 1997. I think I voted against every bill that came out. I probably ordered more studies and reviews of Amtrak, not that I was opposed to passenger rail service or high-speed rail service, but what I wanted was the most efficient operation for the taxpayer and also for the traveling public. We made a commitment almost 18 months ago, Mr. Oberstar and I, and we've worked together and staff have worked together. What we've come up with tonight is a combination not only of Amtrak reauthorization but also rail safety. And we worked together on that issue to try to make passenger rail service across the Nation safer for our passengers. So, the two bills now I might mention, for folks who may be listening and coming to vote on this, Madam Speaker, is we passed by 311 votes the Amtrak, again a historic vote, and nearly 400 votes, the rail safety measure. So tonight we will vote on a combination of those two measures in a bipartisan agreement. This couldn't be a better time to pass something, first because we need an economic infusion in this country. This country has become a third world nation when it comes to passenger rail service, and in particular high-speed rail. We have no high-speed rail service in this country. Acela moves rather slow up the Northeast corridor. This is a proposal that will bring the potential of bringing high-speed rail not only to that corridor, but to all of the corridors across the country that have been designated by Congress. It has a well-thought-out progression and plan for the first time for the private sector to become engaged in high-speed rail service in this country. It opens the door to competition for the development, for the financing, for the construction, and also for the operation of high-speed rail systems. Those proposals go first to a stakeholder commission, those involved in communities around the country that want and desire service, then to the Secretary of Transportation, and then finally to the Congress for approval, a good progression and a logical order. So this is dramatic for a change the way in which we approach high-speed rail service. This also has reforms in the bill for Amtrak that we all feel are long overdue. It also opens up some of the money-losing routes that Amtrak has to private competition. I have to give Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania credit for negotiating that particular provision. One of the interesting things too as we talk about finances, and I didn't know this, without reauthorization legislation we have had to pay a premium for the indebtedness that Amtrak has and for all of our projects. With reauthorization, we actually will save the taxpayer money, move projects forward in a cost-effective manner and also have the ability to finance them, particularly when we have some shaky markets out here. But these projects are based on cooperative efforts. We also dramatically expand the opportunity for intercity rail service so we can get some cars off the roads and so we can move people in the most cost-effective, energy efficient manner in the history of our Nation. So all that is rolled into this legislation. Finally, we have the provision for safety. We enhance again rail passenger safety. We saw the horrible crash we had a few weeks ago in California, so we couldn't pass rail safety provisions at a more appropriate time really to help prevent an accident like we saw and the tragedy many families had to experience in California. So this is the combination. Again, I hope that we can get the administration to join us in making certain that our country moves forward with a transportation alternative that is cost-effective, energy efficient and protects the environment. I am hoping the other body will act soon. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking Republican member of the Rail Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am truly disappointed that the United States Congress today would even consider giving benefits to Filipino veterans and ignore American veterans who were victims of the Bataan Death March in the Philippines. In crafting H.R. 6897, which gives all Filipino veterans benefits, did you know that the Veterans' Affairs Committee dumped a provision to the bill that would have authorized $4 a day for the American survivors of the Bataan Death March? Did you know that of the 4,500 veterans that survived the march, there are only 1,700 American veterans or spouses alive today? Why would Congress ignore these American veterans and their spouses? Passing any legislation that would give foreigners veterans benefits from the American taxpayer without providing just compensation to our citizen veterans is unfair. These are Americans who in the Bataan Death March were tortured, imprisoned, and starved; and, to date, have been denied benefits Congress would grant to Filipinos. Does the United States Congress have no conscence? Furthermore, it is incredible that the Japanese Diet is considering giving benefits to the Japanese captors who are responsible for torturing and maiming our own men. Now the U.S. Congress is adding another insult to those who suffered in the Bataan Death March. The provision that was not included in H.R. 6897, the Filipino Benefits bill, is included in H.R. 1570, The Samuel B. Moody Bataan Death March Compensation Act, which I have introduced year after year. A copy of a previous ``Dear Colleague'' letter that I sent to Members of Congress and the Veterans' Affairs Committee contained the following information. Bataan Death March Survivors Deserve Just Compensation Dear Colleague: In 1942, American and Allied troops fought bravely against the Japanese army during the Second World War on the Bataan Peninsula in the Philippines. Due to the low supplies and no hope of reinforcements, these men fought valiantly until they were forced to surrender to the enemy. Our troops were corralled in the Mariveles, just south of Bataan, and were forced to endure the journey of their lives--the Bataan Death March. Treatment by their Japanese captors was inhumane and often fatal as those who could not continue marching were summarily beaten or executed on the spot. Many marchers attempted to escape into the jungles and some succeeded; however, most were forced to continue on their journey. Once they reached the railroad sidings, the troops were crammed into railroad cars like cattle. After reaching Camp O'Donnell in the jungles of Arlac Province, our soldiers were held as prisoners of war (POWs) for over 3\1/2\ years. Over the years, Congress has adopted provisions concerning the pay, allowances and benefits of members of the uniformed services in ``missing status'' and ``POWs''. As a general proposition, the provisions are intended to leave members of the uniformed services who are in ``missing status'' and ``POWs'', including their dependents, in the same position they would have been if the members were not missing. Unfortunately, veterans of the Bataan Death March were never given their due allowances or benefits. It is only fitting that those soldiers who bravely fought and sacrificed for our freedom be appropriately compensated for their service to our country. In an effort to give these brave men their just benefits, I have introduced H.R. 1570. This legislation would provide compensation to those individuals who were forced to partake and held imprisoned following the ruthless procession. I ask you to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this legislation and ensuring that those who gave so much in service to our Nation receive just compensation for their sacrifice and valor. Today a grave injustice was committed when American POW Bataan Death March Survivors were ignored and left behind. While this statement is in opposition to the action approved by the U.S. House today, I in no way want to imply that the military service sacrifice by Filipino nationals to the United States should not be recognized, appreciated or properly compensated.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and also recognize the efforts of our Subcommittee on Public Buildings of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Also we have Ms. Johnson here and Mr. Graves for this reauthorization bill on the Kennedy Center. I just wanted to add my congratulations for the incredible work that this national cultural center does provide, not only to the District of Columbia and the northeast United States, but the entire country. Mr. Oberstar, our chairman, and myself as ranking member, get to serve as honorary trustees on the Kennedy Center Board, and I had the honor and privilege of attending the reopening of the Eisenhower Theater. Now, folks don't realize that the Kennedy Center was opened in 1971, and, of course, some of the facility does need rehabilitation. The Eisenhower Theater, one of the most prominent theaters, named after President Eisenhower, was closed for several years and underwent a complete renovation, and now is open. But I had the opportunity to attend the little ceremony and dinner commemorating the reopening, and the Rogers family and others who have helped lead that effort are also to be commended in this commentary this afternoon. Most folks don't know this now, and I really wasn't aware of it until this dinner, but the Kennedy Center was actually the idea and one of the primary projects of Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower actually was the author of creating a national cultural center, and it was during his administration and it was a bipartisan effort in 1958 that they authorized a national cultural center to be located in our Nation's Capital here, and it did open in 1971. Now, it was interesting also to see the plans and vision that President Eisenhower had for a national cultural center back then. Of course, it was named for our slain and lost most distinguished President, John F. Kennedy, but the Eisenhower Theater within that complex still bears the visionary's name for this center. So as you undertake this act today, and I commend again the committee members and staff who have worked on this and all those who do make the Kennedy Center one of the richest national cultural centers and facilities, not only in the United States, but the world, I just wanted to add that commentary for the record.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, now, this is going to be a lesson in Government 101. Now, 2 years ago, and this may surprise a lot of the American people and even some Members that follow politics, but the Democrats seized control of the Congress. They control the House, the Senate. Now, people across the country woke up this morning and yesterday and saw the financial markets implode across the United States. Now, who's in charge, the Democrats or the Republicans? Now, for 2 years they promised us change. Look at the financial leadership of the House of Representatives. Look at the leadership of the Ways and Means Committee, right now under siege. They promised us and the American people that they would have a policy, the Pelosi Energy Policy, some 2 years ago when gas prices were hovering around $2. They control the process. We don't control the process. Now, they have brought out a sham. They are in control, and we have the highest energy prices in a bill that does nothing to solve the problem. That's Government 101.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I don't rise in opposition to the Former Vice President Protection Act; I appreciate the work that has been done by the committee on this measure. I don't come here to deride any of their efforts. It's legislation that we probably need to pass. But I do have to say that I just returned from my district in Florida that extends all the way from the suburbs of Orlando to Jacksonville city limits and has the suburbs on the south of Jacksonville through six counties, 32 cities. I spent a wonderful weekend with my constituents, more than a dozen meetings, probably saw more than 1,000 folks this past weekend, enjoyed being home, Florida sun, actually, just a beautiful weekend. But I have to tell you, my colleagues, from one end of my district, and my house is just within a few blocks of the southern border, all the way to the Jacksonville city limits, traveling through most of those six counties, not one person came to me and said, Mr. Mica, go back to Washington, pass the Vice Presidential Protection Act. But I will tell you that everywhere I went there was one thing on people's mind, and that's the cost of energy. With the storms, our heart-felt thoughts and prayers go to the people of Texas and all the area that was hit along the coast and up through the heartland of America this past few days. Another natural disaster, my area was hit some time ago by three hurricanes. We have had tornadoes, and we have had floods. We all have to deal with those. From that hurricane that we saw hit the coast, that had immediate impact in that we had, unfortunately, some price adjustments, some price gouging by people taking advantage of the situation with just the slight turnoff of the refineries and delay and production of energy. As I traveled up and down my district, some of the gas stations closed early. Many of them had plastic bags over the lower cost grade of fuel. People were concerned about energy. I am not talking about people, and I have some very wealthy people on the south end in the suburbs and in the north end, that don't have to worry about $4 and $5 fuel costs per gallon. I am talking about working men and women, single parents, people struggling, retirees that are trying to pay their bills. Again, none of them talked to me about passing a vice presidential protection act, but they said, Congressman Mica, go back to Washington, and whether the cameras and lights are on, and whether the gallery is full or empty, whether the press is here, or whatever the subject, you bring, as our elected representative to the people's House, the House of Representatives, our concern that we want our government, our Congress, our House of Representatives and the United States Senate to act to pass a comprehensive energy plan. Now, they get it out there. They understand that Congress has that responsibility, and it has the ability to do that. Now, I served as a leader of the Transportation Committee, and let me tell you how quickly this place can work if it wants to. I have agreed with Mr. Oberstar, my Democrat counterpart. He is the Chair of the Transportation Committee; I am the Republican leader. I agreed on a Friday to introduce legislation which we agreed to, again, on a Friday. On a Monday, we introduced it in the House. On a Tuesday, we passed it through the House of Representatives. On a Wednesday we passed it through the United States Senate. On a Thursday night at 7 o'clock, the President signed it into law. After 9/11 we came together in a national emergency. Now, we didn't have a terrorist hit, but we had a national emergency. Our people are hurting, people are hurting. It's the folks that the other side of the aisle claim to be trying to be the advocates for, and they have been standing in the way. I have been around this place for more than two decades. I come from the most bipartisan family since 1889 to serve in the House of Representatives. I have never seen the House closed or Members denied the opportunity to discuss in a time of national crisis, and we have a crisis on our hands. Energy is not only affecting the price of gas, if you haven't been to the supermarket lately, my friends in the House, anyone who is in elected office who may not get to the supermarket, I advise you to get to the supermarket and see the sticker shock that the same folks are seeing, exorbitant prices at the fuel pump people are paying for average goods just to try to keep food on their table. So we have a crisis. I have never seen a time when we weren't even allowed to bring an issue that would deal with a crisis, and here we know need a comprehensive approach. It's not just drilling, although I have a record way back to my days on the floor of the legislature of promoting responsible exploration, development of our domestic resources. Sometimes it was a pretty lonely caucus that I belonged to. I was the only member from the Florida delegation, Democrat or Republican, to support us keeping energy independent in a responsible manner. Maybe I was ahead of my time, but I didn't want us to become dependent on foreign energy. That's where we are right now. They have got us right where they want us. When you have a natural disaster, like we had this weekend, it drives speculation. It drives the cost up. It drove the availability up, because there is nothing like driving to a gas station and seeing a plastic bag over all of the pumps and no fuel available. I am disappointed. Again, I don't want to detract, what this committee is doing is a responsible act, but no one asked me to come here to pass a Vice Presidential protection act. But I am telling you, they told me to come back to Washington to, to stay in Washington, to work in Washington, and, in a bipartisan fashion, to pass all of the above. They get it, it's drilling, and we are not talking about the politics of drilling, and I have seen the politics of drilling in my own State of Florida for years. That was bad politics, and it got us in this bad situation. What we need to do with extracting oil or gas or natural resources from off our shores is use the latest technology and base our exploration and development on sound science and good practices that do not harm the environment. Don't tell me you can't do it, you can do it. We can do it. We can extract it. Why should we be dependent on the Mid East, Nigeria, Venezuela, and other foreign sources of energy? Folks, it doesn't make sense. But you know what? The American people got it. They have been busy out there. They are trying to raise a family. They are trying to put food on the table. They are trying to send their kids to school. They are struggling to keep their jobs in a depressed market right now, and all they want is a little help from the people they sent here to do their job. They get it about drilling. They get it about alternative sources. You know, just drilling isn't going to do it, and just developing our resources, which we can do, and we can do it in an expedited fashion. But they know the long-term fix is to get off that, to have alternative fuels. I submit that the proposal by the Republicans, the American Energy Act, does just that. It's all of the above. Somehow we have gotten it. Now we can't afford a sham in coming forward, and you know, some people are looking for political cover. They have an election around the corner. We have got to have a vote on something to make it look like we are doing something. But that does not solve the problem. I plead, on behalf of those people that I saw this weekend in the Seventh Congressional District, to do something meaningful, to do a comprehensive energy act. It will start to solve some of our problems. We can start becoming energy independent. We can lower the price of fuel and food that people depend on to feed their families. Then we can start building this economy again. The great opportunity that I have had in the last year and a half, leading the Transportation Committee, is not just see the projects and things going on in my district, but see the magnificence of this country from sea to shining sea. This is an incredible country, and there isn't any challenge that we have never been able to undertake and also win at. We are creative people. We can do it. All those people out there that are working so hard, sending their money here, relying on us to do something, to be their representative in this governing body that has so much say, let's just do our job. Put the politics aside, put November aside, put these people forward. That's all they are asking is for us to do our job. So I stayed here when the lights went out last week until I had the opportunity to speak, and C-SPAN was turned off and the Speaker had left and the place was closed down. I came back early today to tell you that they did not ask me, not one of them, to pass the Former Vice President Protection Act, but they did ask me, please do something about our energy, Mr. Mica. You are our Representative. Go back there and tell them that we need their help to get the economy going, to get this situation under control so we can give a great opportunity to our children, to our hopes and dreams for this great country. I know we can do it. I know we can do it. Our predecessors have done it. I don't know why we are not doing it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership, and I also thank Mr. Johnson for his comments. When you don't have an energy policy and when you don't have a comprehensive plan to deal with the escalating costs of fuel, you create a crisis. We have created a crisis in the pocketbook and in the checkbook of most Americans. We have also created a crisis here in Congress and in the United States Department of Transportation, because the highway trust fund has gone bust. It is broke. There is no money in it. In fact, tomorrow they will be issuing, if we do not act, notices of termination of Federal participation. That has consequences. That means not a few jobs will be lost, but there will be 380,000 jobs potentially lost across the country. There will be projects across the United States that are put on hold. So there are consequences to our inaction of adopting a sound energy policy and resolving this issue. And we can solve the energy issue, but we do need a comprehensive approach to do that. People responded by driving less, so there is less money going into the fund. We have a more efficient fleet of cars on the roads, so we have less money coming also into the fund. And we have alternative fuels that are starting to be used, like plug-in electric and hybrids, that we don't collect the gas tax on. So the trust fund is broke. Now the House did act responsibly. I partnered with Mr. Oberstar, the Chair of our Transportation Committee, with Mr. Rangel, and Mr. McCrery. We did act, and this House passed on July 23 a fix for what is wrong. Mr. Johnson is right, this is a Band-Aid on a major problem that we have in funding transportation, and we are just kicking the can down further down. But we have got to sit down immediately as a Congress and resolve these funding issues in our highway trust fund, or we will be back here taking money out of our children's future and out of our general treasury to fund transportation. That is not the way to do it. It's not the right way to go. We must begin immediately, because the bill we are working under expires next September 30, and we have in place no mechanism to replace and replenish those funds. So this is a Band-Aid, it is a temporary fix. It is not the way I like to do business, but we need to get down to business, solve the energy problem, and have a long-term fix for the highway trust fund that is broken today.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today, September 11, 2008, to once again honor and pay tribute to Sergeant Bryan J. Tutten, 33, who, like many other brave Americans, joined the military following the terrorist attacks on our homeland 7 years ago. Sergeant Tutten died in service to our country on Christmas Day, December 25, 2007, fighting insurgents on his second tour of duty in Iraq. On Saturday, September 13, 2008, the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2391 in St. Augustine, Florida, will hold a special ceremony to honor the life and service of Sergeant Tutten. The Post will be renamed the Veterans of Foreign Wars Bryan Tutten Memorial Post 2391. On Tuesday, January 15, 2007, I included in the Congressional Record the following remarks and today I want to again honor Sergeant Tutten's life by reflecting on his service to the United States. Prior to joining the Army, Sgt. Tutten, born in St. Augustine, Florida, graduated from St. Augustine High School and attended St. Johns River Community College. He was also a member of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in St. Augustine. We should all remember Sgt. Tutten's courage and his ultimate sacrifice for our nation. The freedom and liberty we enjoy and peace in the world for others for which he fought are part of the great legacy that Sgt. Tutten leaves behind. He was laid to rest at San Lorenzo Cemetery in St. Augustine, Florida on January 4, 2008. After the devastating events of September 11, 2001, Sgt. Tutten enrolled in the Army. His family remembers him as an avid sportsman who loved to fish and cook, and how he enjoyed the time he had playing with his daughter, Catherine. He was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina which was deployed to Iraq. With the passing of Sgt. Tutten, America has lost an outstanding citizen and a shining example of service to our nation. He will be remembered as a patriotic American, a pillar of our community and a compassionate husband and a loving father. To his wife Constandina, his daughter Catherine, his son Gareth, his mother Ms. Sylvia Smallwood and his loving family and friends, we offer our deepest sympathy. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize Sgt. Bryan J. Tutten's contributions and to ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives of the 110th Congress to join me in recognizing his service in our nation's Armed Forces and remembering a great American hero.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, as William Wordsworth once wrote, ``the Child is Father to the Man.'' Like all of us, from time-to-time I fondly recall those who have made a significant impact upon my life. For where would we be if not for those who made the special effort to guide the next generation, and befriend us but demand much from us, so that we may learn to demand much from ourselves? It is because of those who touch our lives and instill the values we all hold dear as a society, those who provide guidance to our young people every day, that make us successful and our nation stronger. Some are there to deal directly with us from day-to-day. Others help set up and run the institutions that provide the networks for others to have a profound impact upon our young. In my life, Margie Lee was one such person. Known affectionately as ``Marge'' and across America as the ``Delta Chi Mom,'' Marge inspired several generations of Delta Chis while working in the Fraternity's International Headquarters since 1964. She was devoted to Delta Chi and to us all, helping to provide guidance to thousands of young men in those potentially very difficult years at college and first time away from home. I had both the honor and the pleasure of working directly with Marge. It was while I worked as assistant to the executive director of the Delta Chi Fraternity in my first job after graduating from the University of Florida. I saw how Marge worked every day on behalf of my Delta Chi Brothers. Over the years, I witnessed first hand how she devoted her life to bestowing the advantages of a brotherhood of college and university men to use their education ``to promote friendship, develop character and advance justice.'' In doing so, Marge helped generations of young boys grow into successful, value-driven men. Marge passed away yesterday morning in Iowa City at age 79. She is survived by four children and thousands of her adopted Delta Chi sons around the world. When we are young we don't fully appreciate the time and sacrifice our elders take to shape us into successful adults. Sometimes our separate paths take us away from our mentors before we fully appreciate what they did for us. All too often they pass on before we get the chance to thank them properly. Not many of us have the opportunity to recognize and publically say thanks. Today, to her family, to my colleagues in Congress and Delta Chi Brothers, I am honored and pleased to say--thank you Margie Lee.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, As our Nation reflects upon the day of the terrorist attacks 7 years ago this week, I cannot forget my friends who were killed by terrorists that day. Some 7 weeks before September 11, 2001, I spent several days in New York City with Neal Levin, executive director of the Port Authority New York and New Jersey. I met Neal when he was the legislative director to Senator Al D'Amato of New York and when I was chief of staff to Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida. In early 2001, he became director of the Port Authority, just as I became chairman of the U.S. House Aviation Subcommittee in Congress. With New York area airports under his authority, he called on me as an old friend to come to New York, review the air congestion problem and conduct a hearing on the matter. I obliged my friend Neal and after visiting John F. Kennedy International, Newark Liberty International and LaGuardia Airports, held a hearing in the Port Authority Hearing Room in the World Trade Center. After the hearing, Neal hosted me and several other guests in the Port Authority's Dining Room adjacent to the Windows of the World Restaurant at the top of the World Trade Center. It was in that same room where I left Neal and the others who assisted me that they all met their deaths on Tuesday, September 11th. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld invited me and several other Members of Congress to a breakfast meeting at the Pentagon. Our discussion that day was how to rebuild our Nation's military capability that had been downsized under the outgoing Clinton Administration. Specific to the conversation was how our stretched and limited military could muster the resources to deal with a future engagement. As the meeting concluded near 9 a.m., I was speaking with the Defense Secretary at the end of the conference table as word of the first plane to hit the World Trade Center reached us. Then we were told of the second attack. While the Secretary stepped into his adjacent office, I conferred with several of his top aides about the situation. Missing my ride back to Capitol Hill, I sought a ride to the House Office Building and arrived just as the plane hit the Pentagon. Killed in the Pentagon, where I had departed just minutes before, was Terry Lynch who worked as a U.S. Senate staffer for Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. Terry and I were friends from our U.S. Senate staff days. On Flight 93, was Barbara Olsen who worked with me on the House Government Reform Committee. She was a brilliant and most capable professional and a dear friend who was killed by fanatic terrorists. While 7 years have passed, I can never forget these friends or the manner in which they were taken from us and their families. As Americans, we are blessed with a life most of the world can only dream about. While we go about our lives, we should not and can not ever forget those taken from us on September 11th.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I appreciate the ranking member of our highway subcommittee, Mr. Duncan, yielding to me. And appreciate the hard work Mr. DeFazio, who chairs this subcommittee, has put into this legislation, and also Mr. Oberstar and others. I apologize in actually getting in front of my ranking member of the subcommittee, but have a number of Senators and Representatives waiting on me. I just want to weigh in and say that I support this legislation. I do want to also set, for the record, the conditions under which this administration is acting. First of all, I voted against NAFTA back in 1993. It was touted as going to be the best thing since sliced bread for the country. While it has increased some exports and some opportunities on both sides of the border, I believe, overall, it sent many jobs south, and unfortunately, it hasn't been all that it was made out to be. Additionally, one of the reasons I voted against NAFTA was, as far as the North American Free Trade Agreement, trading with Canada was a pretty level playing field. Trading with Mexico isn't the same deal. And within the original language was a provision that allowed Mexican trucks to transverse our borders and come into the United States, which I was opposed to then, and am opposed to now. Now, that has been contested over the years, both in the Clinton administration, also during the Bush administration. Within, also, the language of NAFTA, folks should realize that they set up a panel, a NAFTA panel, to be the arbiter and the judge of how the U.S. must act. We really relegated our sovereignty to a panel, again, within NAFTA, which, every time the United States has acted in a contrary fashion to the provisions of the treaty, has ruled against the United States. So here the Bush administration takes a minimal project, moves it forward. And it is a minimal. There is a limit on the number of trucks that can cross, et cetera. But Congress has the authority now to stop that program, and I think this is the time to stop that program. There are those in Congress who have to make a decision whether they want these trucks now to continue. We don't have to comply with some agreement. Actually, we passed the treaty, and Congress has the responsibility now to act properly and stop, really, what they started, which was not in the interest of the United States in having, again, fleets of Mexican trucks come across our borders. So this legislation stops a whole host of bad decisions that have been made in the past. And I strongly support this, in spite of any threats from anybody to act in stopping this legislation. We need to pass this legislation. We need to act responsibly and act now.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman and my colleagues, I am pleased to be with you tonight to discuss an important piece of legislation that has been brought forth by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. First of all I have to compliment the ranking member of the Highway Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his leadership and his efforts in working together with his counterpart, Mr. DeFazio, and also my counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, to try to bring legislation to the floor that will make our bridges safer, that we have seen problems with our infrastructure in this Nation. We have a responsibility from the Federal Government. We can't fix every bridge in every county, every city across every road in the country, but we do have an obligation where we have Federal funds, where we have interstate, where we have bridges and infrastructure that's so important for the commerce of this Nation to make certain that they are sound, that we have adequate protocols and procedures for inspection of those bridges, and that we try to make certain that those bridges are inspected on an appropriate basis and that there is remediation. It's one thing to make demands of local State government from the Federal level, but what we want to do is ask reasonable people to take reasonable actions and take corrective actions where they are needed, rather than dictate from on high. First of all, let me say my sympathy goes out to everyone and all those who lost their loved ones in the tragedy that struck Minnesota. I was on the floor with Chairman Oberstar when we learned of the collapse of the I-35 bridge, and Congress acted immediately to replace that structure. That structure's replacement is actually an example I am going to use in the future for replacement of any infrastructure in this country. In 437 days that bridge will be replaced, and if we could do that with other projects across the Nation, we would save so much time, money and hassle and red tape, but it shows that we can, if we want to take action, in replacing our infrastructure. But, again, we had a tragedy. We weren't sure the day that it happened what the cause was, and we are still having information gathered by the National Safety Transportation Board, and they will file a final report. But I might also say that the loss of even one life in the collapse of a bridge is too much, and we have to act again to ensure bridge safety, but we have to also look at some of the conditions. Even if we take the Minnesota bridge collapse, we do know now, and I have seen pictures of a design flaw of problems with the gusset plate, one of the structural support systems. That flaw was identified over several terms of different administrations in Minnesota. I have seen pictures that transcend, again, the flaw that was found, and not a lot was done about it. We also have learned that the bridge was underdesigned, really, for the kind of traffic that it has today, and that's another problem we have with larger trucks and vehicles on our bridges, and we also know that bridge was under construction and a contractor had put a significant amount of weight which may have led to the collapse. We don't know that. There were other vehicles too, we know, on the bridge. All of that will give us a final determination of why that bridge went down. But what we have got to do is not base our policy for the future, and this legislation, on presuming that certain things took place. We have got to deal with facts, and, again, in an appropriate and logical manner in which we proceed to ensure safety of bridges. One of the things that I learned from all of this is that the trucks and vehicles that we have running over our bridges today, I think anyone who goes down the interstate, or down a major highway, sees a sign, a weight limit for bridges that's usually posted. The amazing thing I found about today is that while we limit the weight of those vehicles, the violations of people going over those bridges with excessive weights is just mind-popping. It is happening across the country. So, many bridges like the Minnesota bridge that were built to a certain design for a certain era and certain weights, even though that weight limit is posted, one of the problems is that people drive vehicles that weigh far in excess, many times over. In fact, the Department of Transportation even publishes statistics on the estimates and the incidence of some of these violations. So that's something that we have got to address, too. Again, I have a number of areas in this bill I think we have worked on that are good provisions, the training and certification of bridge inspectors, the requirement that States adopt a risk-based list and prioritization of the bridges that do need attention. There are good provisions in here. I do have a couple of things that give me hiccups, and I have expressed my concern about. I had attempted to go before the Rules Committee and offer an amendment that would have corrected two of the major flaws that I see in the approach we are taking here. That was, unfortunately, rejected. People have come and asked me how I'm going to vote on this measure. Quite frankly, I don't know. And I won't know until tomorrow, until I've heard the rest of the debate because, again, there are two flaws in this that concern me. Mr. Duncan mentioned them, and again I'll repeat them. One is lack of flexibility that allows our States that have been responsible to move money around. And I will submit for the Record a list of some of those States. But States like California will be impacted here that in the past have asked to transfer funds. I mentioned to a Member from California that, even though I think that California has acted responsibly, California has also been the victim of natural disasters or earthquakes. Sometimes their bridges have collapsed. Sometimes their roads have collapsed. Sometimes they need to move money around. This bill does, unfortunately, set up some inflexibility that I think will harm some States that have had to use that mechanism in the past, but yet have been responsible in the manner in which they have expended their money, both Federal and State money, for bridge projects. My State of Florida also is a responsible State and will be penalized by the terms of this. I have a very strong statement from our Secretary of Transportation, Stephanie Kopelousos, in opposition to the terms that were provided in this bill. Now, I know that the chairman has tried to make some accommodations in this. I'm sorry that the Rules Committee did not see fit to take an amendment that would have provided a corrective remedy to help Florida, California, Tennessee--I've got a long list that I will submit in the Record of States who may be penalized, and some of them penalized for doing the right thing. The other thing, too, is it does penalize States who have done the right thing, and that's unfortunate. I don't think we should put our States that act in good faith at a disadvantage for legislation that we've passed here. So while there are some good provisions, I have some questions about what we're doing. This isn't the final say on this bill, it will have to go through the other body. And we want it to be good and thoughtful and productive and effective legislation as it is finalized. So those are some of the comments that I wanted to provide as we speak here now in general debate. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In conclusion, the intent of this legislation is excellent to identify bridges that are deficient, that are obsolete, that need repair, that need attention, and provide the resources to do that. But, again, the rating system by which we determine whether a bridge is structurally deficient or structurally obsolete, that rating system is out of date. We need the General Accounting Office to come up with a better rating system, one that makes sense in the 21st century, so that we can do a better job in assessing those bridges that do need repair, targeting the money to those bridges, but having a good rating system, and that's what this simple amendment does. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that deals with what I spoke of during general debate. It is nice that we consider adding additional authorization for money to repair our bridges. It is nice that we institute some corrective measures that will require States to prioritize bridges that are at risk. But I think that we need to go further in trying to look at some of the issues that have brought about the problems we have seen with maintaining some of our bridges, and also pinpointing the bridges that pose a risk that deserve our attention and that warrant action. So the amendment that I am offering today requires that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, conduct a study on the effectiveness of the bridge-rating system used by the Federal Highway Administration. Since the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, the terms ``structurally deficient'' bridge and ``functionally obsolete'' bridge have been commonly used and intertwined in describing the condition of highway bridges across the country. I think that is one of the problems that we've had in the whole bridge inspection system is the basic definition. However, the general public has little understanding of what the terms actually mean. Most people, even Members of Congress, would assume that if a bridge is classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, that the bridge is immediately in danger of collapsing. That's not the case, and we need to differentiate, again a definition that makes sense, on the actual condition of the bridge. According to the Federal Highway Administration, a rating of structurally deficient means that there are elements of the bridge that need to be monitored and/or repaired. The fact that a bridge is deficient does not imply that it is likely to collapse or that it is in fact unsafe. It means that the bridge must be monitored, inspected, and properly maintained. In reality, there are structurally deficient bridges at the top end of the current bridge-rating scale that can safely remain in service for 20 years or more if the owner of the bridge, the State or whatever entity, performs the necessary maintenance to keep the bridge structurally sound. At the same time, there are structurally deficient bridges at the bottom of the rating scale that are closed to all traffic because the bridge may collapse at any moment. I believe it is a disservice to the American people to have a bridge- rating system that does very little to actually distinguish between the bridges that can stay open and are safe for 20 years or more with a comprehensive maintenance plan, and a 100-year-old bridge that may collapse tomorrow if it remains open to traffic. So to get to the heart of the issue that we are discussing, to try to approach this on a reasonable basis, if we are going to put money into these programs, repair these bridges and repair bridges that need repair, we need an amendment like this that will require GAO to evaluate the existing bridge-rating system, which is deficient, and it will also evaluate the rating systems used by the State Departments of Transportation and make recommendations on how the existing rating system can be improved to more accurately convey the condition of bridges throughout the United States. So that's the purpose of this amendment. It is a simple amendment trying to get to the heart of the problem. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, let me tell you the situation we're in. The highway trust fund is basically busted; it's busted for several reasons. First of all, we depend on 18.4 cents of tax to come in on every gallon of gasoline to that fund. People are driving less, so there is less money coming into the fund. The fleet out there of cars and trucks are more efficient; people are buying more efficient hybrids. There are nine million hybrids, which are going further on one gallon and paying literally less; so we have less money coming in. We're also using more alternative fuels. What's going to happen, folks--and I have many of my conservative colleagues on this side of the aisle coming to me--$8 billion for the highway trust fund, why should I support this? I'm telling you, folks, we have no alternative but to support this right now. I think Mr. McCrery is correct, that we do have a problem; we need to solve the funding problem. We can't do that today. But what we've got to do today is make certain that this trust fund is sound; otherwise, in States across the country, hundreds of projects in Members' districts, the Department of Transportation Secretaries are going to be telling you we're closing down projects. Madam Speaker, 380,000 jobs could be lost. We could have a shortfall of as much as $14 billion in funding transportation. We've got to do this now. Now, the estimate came out last spring that we would be $3 billion short. We're going to get an estimate this week that will show us $5 to $6 billion short. That means the Federal Government is going to tell your States and your Secretaries to start closing down these projects if we don't have the Federal money to back the obligation that we made as a Federal Government to them. Unfortunately, the bill has come due, and we've got to pay it today. And this is a national crisis. This is a transportation situation. We've all got to work with each other and come up with a solution. Mr. McCrery is right, in the long term we've got to resolve the funding problem, the basic funding problem. Next September 30, the current legislation and policy we work on expires. I know Mr. Oberstar and I and others will work to come up with a formula that guarantees the solvency of this system. This is absolutely essential. I wish, as one of the strongest conservatives in the House, to have some other alternative to bring you today, but I do not have that. I thank the Ways and Means Committee for their cooperation, Mr. Oberstar for his cooperation. We must go forward, meet this obligation, and fund these projects.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Again, I first have to compliment Mr. Oberstar. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this initiative. This is actually very historic in nature. The House of Representatives and the Congress has not passed an Amtrak reauthorization since 1997. That is 11 years. One of the first things, when Mr. Oberstar and I met, when we took over the committee, I on the Republican side, he as the Chair of the committee for the new majority, we set some goals aside. One was to pass a WRDA bill, water resources, so our Nation would have water resources. We hadn't passed a bill in 7 years. And the last bill we passed was about a four or $5 billion authorization. We passed one for almost $24 billion, the first one, in, again, a long, long time. We committed to try to reauthorize and authorize Amtrak, our national passenger rail service. And we have worked together. I have to compliment my colleague, Ms. Brown, who chairs the Rail Subcommittee, and also I want to thank the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Shuster, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who also rolled up his sleeves and worked diligently, and for that we were able to pass, by a very wide margin in the United States House, about a month ago, I think it was 311 votes, a very wide margin, Amtrak reauthorization. Now we have an opportunity to take to conference, the other body, the Senate has passed legislation. What we are doing today is taking the Senate bill and we are adding the language from the House because we want to negotiate a bill that can become law and make the changes that the House voted on a month ago, and that we will get a chance to vote on again today. It is my hope that many of the highlights and provisions of the House Amtrak reauthorization will be included in the final conference report, and that will be the measure that both the House and Senate vote on individually, and hopefully we can get the President to sign into law. But the conference process also gives us a chance to make further improvements, even on what the other body passed and what we passed about a month ago, as I said, because it is important that we make good Amtrak reforms. And some things we have learned even since we passed legislation in the House. We want to open the door to more competition. And in a time when we are struggling to find positive solutions to address the energy crisis that our Nation is facing, it is important that we look at transportation alternatives that are cost effective and that can improve passenger rail service, just not in one area, but across the whole country that we have responsibility for. So the bill that we have before us, S. 294, will be amended, and it will have the text of the House bill that we passed, again, a month ago. But one of the most important provisions is something, again, that I have insisted on trying to do, and that is to drag the United States, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century of high speed rail. In the proposal that I crafted in the bill, and with the help of Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, and Mr. Shuster, what we have is a simple provision. And it says that the Department of Transportation can take proposals from the private sector to develop, to finance, to construct and to operate high speed rail service. We do have a caveat that we want high speed rail service from Washington to New York in 2 hours, and we want stops along the way to service areas. Now, some folks say, well, we have Acela. Yes, we do have Acela, and Acela's come a long way, and had some difficulty in its implementation. But I am not going to go there. I don't want to talk about the past. I want to talk about the future. And the future is, stop and think about this. Going just a few blocks from here, from Union Station to New York City, Center City to downtown Manhattan in less than 2 hours, with stops along the way. Now, think of how that would revolutionize travel in the Northeast Corridor and in the United States. Why start there? Because that is the only corridor that Amtrak owns. Amtrak runs over 22,000 miles of rail track, but that 22,000 miles of rail track, with the exception of a little over 700 miles, is all on private freight rail. The only thing that Amtrak owns as far as right- of-way, the primary piece of real estate it owns, and one of the most valuable real estate assets in the world, if not the United States, is the Northeast Corridor. And that Northeast Corridor, right now the way it is constructed, with commuter service, freight service and Acela service, doesn't operate very well. So what we are asking is the private sector to come in, give us the ideas on how we can have high speed rail. Give us the ideas. Now, I always say, folks, that we are sitting on our assets; the Federal government is sitting on our assets. And that Northeast Corridor is a great public asset that we all have interest in, the taxpayers out there have interest in. So we can take that asset and we can maximize its utilization, both as a utility corridor, as a high speed rail corridor, as a better commuter service corridor and as a better freight service corridor. So we take that and we get a better return. We develop it so that we have jobs, we have construction, we have service between here and New York in less than 2 hours. Think about that. Instead of going out to National Airport or to Dulles, waiting for an hour and then on the other end trying to commute back in. Think of the people that we take off of the road. Think of the change in the pattern of travel in the Northeast Corridor. And I can tell you, even with next generation air traffic control technology, this is the most important thing that will impact aviation congestion in our country, because 78 percent of all of the delays in our entire national air space system and in aviation in this country ripple from New York City's air space. It's congested air space out to the rest of the country. When you can't get into New York or out of New York, the rest of the system goes down, and there is nothing, even next-generation air traffic control that can make planes fly that much closer, to solve this problem. What we're going to have to do is go to a different system, and that system is high-speed rail. And I would like for Amtrak to do it by themselves, but they are running long-distance service, and they are running other services. And we think that it's our last hope to have the private sector come in, which Amtrak would have them do anyways, and give us proposals as to how we can maximize the utilization, separate the traffic, and get true high-speed service in that order. So that's the proposal. As I said, Amtrak now chugs along at 83 miles an hour. It's almost embarrassing to call that high-speed rail. That's Acela, not the other service. It's 83 miles an hour. In the rest of the world, Europe and Asia, high-speed is defined as between 120 and 150 miles an hour on average. So we can do the same thing. There is no reason why the United States cannot do the same thing to maximize the developmental potential of the Northeast corridor, the most densely populated and valuable corridor in the Nation. So I think, again, working with Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, Mr. Shuster, we have a plan, we have a vision. We want the other body to go along with us. We think this is the way to go by substituting our bill this afternoon, and hopefully we can go to conference. Hopefully, we can go back to the American people and say we've done something that will impact energy, impact transportation, not just rail. Also, remember what I just said about aviation capacity in the United States, and we can do it all in this package. This isn't an impossible dream. This is doable. So I ask again that we give full consideration. I give full support, am pleased to join Mr. Oberstar in that effort as we change out the Senate bill 294, insert our legislation, and work with the other body again in bringing long-distance, high-speed, better passenger service rail service in not just the Northeast Corridor but with the reforms we've advocated for Amtrak for the whole Nation. We can do it. We must do it. And I look forward to doing it with Mr. Oberstar. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I do have two additional speakers. One is the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the former chairman of the Rail Subcommittee and now the ranking Republican of the Coast Guard Committee, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, as we conclude the debate on H.R. 6493, which makes changes to the way we conduct FAA airline inspections and how we make certain that we have the safest aviation system possible, I believe that it is important to point out just a couple of things. First of all, since November of 2001, there has not been a single large passenger aircraft fatality in the United States. We have had several commuter airlines, smaller aircraft, I know at least one in Charlotte, another in Lexington, and any loss of life in any size aircraft is not acceptable. Some of those did not relate to the inspection. The reasons for the air crash or fatalities was not as a result of inspections or the procedures we have before us today. What we do have historically is again instituted a self-reporting system, probably a half a dozen years ago we shifted to this system. We do collect that data. That data is supposed to be acted upon by inspectors on a risk base. So we look at the data where there is a problem. And that is where we put our resources to make certain that the aircraft is operating, inspected and mechanically sound. And that has worked fairly well. We have, again, to reiterate what I said before, the committee did investigate when whistle-blowers came to us. We found an instance or instances of this cozy relationship, and we felt that we should take some steps to first eliminate sort of the revolving door, stop the revolving door, put some time between those that worked for the FAA and then going out to the airlines, and also instituting some other protective measures. Now I must say that even when the inspector general of the Department of Transportation investigated what was going on and what we found, they did not find the problem systemic. What they did say was that the data that was being collected on which we based our inspections and assessed risk was not adequately being adhered to. That data and the information was not being adhered to by all levels of FAA, for example, management, and eventually the Congress. So we also changed in this bill the recommendation that the inspector general made when they found that, again, the problem wasn't just the revolving door, but paying attention to the red flags and the signals that were being sent by the data. So this is a good bill. This is a bipartisan effort to take a safe system, make it even safer, make certain that those warning signs are paid attention to both by FAA at all levels, inspectors, managers in this self-reporting system, and also by Congress who has the ultimate responsibility. Also, I might say that how did this affect folks? Well, when Congress started to say we weren't properly inspecting or there were conflicts, FAA said, we're going to give you inspections. And they did give us inspections. And we closed down thousands of flights. And hundreds of thousands of people paid the price. And the airlines paid the price to make sure that zero tolerance was applied and that we did inspect those planes. But that is not exactly what we want to happen in the future. H.R. 6493 will help us to avoid any future mass airlines groundings like the ones we saw this spring and the horrible inconveniences suffered by hundreds of thousands of people in the traveling public. This is an important bill that will ensure our national aviation system remains the safest in the world and that FAA provides the proper oversight of airlines and their maintenance programs that are so important to that safety. I commend Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Costello, Mr. Petri, who is not with us, our ranking member, the staffs that worked on both sides. This is a good bill. I support it. It will make a good system even better. And I think with that, Mr. Speaker, to assist the House in moving forward with the business of the day, I will yield back the balance of my time.