John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this time.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman so much, that we have a distinguished member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee offering this well thought out amendment. It is going to clearly provide availability, convenience, and assist the cost of making eligible again these bus end-of-the-line parking facilities. Well thought out. There was a gap here, and I am glad the gentleman from Washington filled that so adequately, and we support the amendment.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, my Democrat counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, for his work on this piece of legislation that does deal with some of the issues that we are facing right now and follows some of the discussions that we have had on the floor relating to energy and energy conservation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very small piece of the puzzle, but it is nonetheless an important piece and we have tried to exercise our jurisdictional responsibility in coming forth with this, again, small piece of the puzzle. This bill does provide for expansion of some of the transit grants around the country, and I think that there are some beneficial provisions for those in rural areas, suburban areas, and for much of the public that relies on public transportation. This bill further does allow sort of an unprecedented ability to use some of the money traditionally used for projects to assist some of the local transit authorities that are suffering now with high fuel costs. Just like the average family is suffering with high fuel costs, transit agencies have also experienced the same problem. They are cutting back on services, sometimes when people really need to have an option and don't have that option, by cutting out routes, and that has been announced even in my area. So I think we are doing a responsible thing. This is a 2-year authorization. It is an expansion of the authorization of $1.7 billion that does give some of the folks on my side some hiccups, but it is authorization, it is not appropriation and each Member is going to have to judge their support or opposition based on the final product. But I have joined Chairman Oberstar in support of this authorizing bill. I think again it fills our small piece of the puzzle. I did want to take just a minute or two, I didn't get a chance to speak on the rule or on the energy legislation that was before the House earlier, and there was quite a bit of banter. And some people were bashing the President and this administration for not having a plan. In fact, someone said he didn't recall a plan, which is kind of funny. I am very fortunate to have outstanding staff, but this summer I also have some outstanding interns. They come from all over the country to Congress, and I have gotten some from my district and elsewhere. So you have a little more staff to do research rather than just keep on the track that we are on here every day. I said wasn't there a Bush plan? And all be darned, there was a Bush energy plan. So I had a little research done on that. Lo and behold, very shortly into his term, it was May 17, 2001, the President of the United States, George Bush, just a few months into office, he set two major priorities, one being education. You remember on 9/11 he was in a Florida classroom talking about his plan to improve education. But even before that, in May as one of his first priorities, he announced his plan. He announced his plan actually in the home State of the chairman, in St. Paul, Minnesota. On that day when he announced it he said, ``If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom do not share our interests.'' On that same day when he announced his plan, he said regarding part of his plan, ``We will underwrite research and development into energy- saving technology. It'll require manufacturers to build more energy- efficient appliances. We will review and remove obstacles that prevent business from investing in energy-efficient technologies.'' Furthermore, President Bush said, ``The second part of our energy plan will be to expand and diversify our Nation's energy supplies. America today imports,'' and now this is May of 2001, ``America today imports 52 percent of all of our oil. If we don't take action, those imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.'' The President called for burning coal more cleanly, expanding nuclear power, and drilling for new oil in new places, that included the Arctic area in Alaska. The President said that is banned now, but the President said it can be done safely. Listen to this one. This is the President in St. Paul. ``ANWR can produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We're not just short of oil; we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of capacity, our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.'' That was part of the President's plan, and how prophetic could you be. This was before 9/11. This was in May of 2001, announcing his plan. I can't take up all of the time, but I have Mr. Gephardt's response: Congress will take action to stop them. Mr. Kerry vowed to filibuster, and the Sierra Club is already running ads against it. Those were some of the responses. It is interesting how quickly we forget that there have been plans, and those plans could have made a big difference. Here today we are trying in a bipartisan fashion to make a small difference to give some of our Federal employees outside the Capital Beltway the opportunity to have the same transit advantages and payments that we give within the Beltway to Federal employees outside, expand some of the grants for transit, and also help some of those transit operations that are suffering like the American family is with cutbacks because of high fuel costs. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I don't want to take the time, but we are concluding debate on this amendment, the Hodes amendment. I urge its adoption. I urge those who feel it is appropriate to support the measure, as I said it does have an increased authorization, not appropriation, of $1.7 billion. It does expand some of the transit grants to transit agencies that are hurting across the country. It does expand the transit benefits that are now restricted to those within the Beltway to Federal employees outside. It does not solve the problem. It is a small piece of the solution, and I have been pleased to work with Mr. Oberstar in a bipartisan fashion to do our small part. I must conclude, however, by saying that the House and the Congress can do a better job. My side of the aisle does not control the Congress this time. We have heard that there is a larger energy plan. We need to bring that energy plan forward. I didn't have the time that the majority leader had in his remarks, and this isn't a blame game situation nor should it be. People are suffering in this country with $4-plus a gallon gas. I just saw this $5.25, which must be from California. That's not why our constituents sent us here. They sent us here to solve problems. In the same bipartisan spirit that Mr. Oberstar and I are bringing forward this little piece, we need a much larger piece. A week from tomorrow is Independence Day, and that is a day we should be celebrating, not lamenting that we are not independent of foreign oil. We can work our way out of this. We can't tax our way out, we can't regulate our way out, but we have the means of moving forward and increasing the supply and lowering the price for the American people. We haven't done this, this Congress hasn't done this, and I am sorry that I have that to report at the end of my remarks, both in favor of the Hodes amendment and in favor of this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and contributions of Ming Chien Hsu upon her retirement following a long career in the maritime industry. During the course of her professional life, Ms. Hsu repeatedly distinguished herself in the fields of transportation and international commerce; as well as in government service and community leadership. Born in Beijing, China, Ms. Hsu came to the United States in the days following World War II. Settling in Washington, she enrolled in, and graduated Summa Cum Laude from, the School of Government Affairs at George Washington University. Degree in hand, Ms. Hsu moved to New Jersey where she began a career that has been interesting and impressive by any measure. Coming to the workplace in an era before it was common to see women in executive positions, Ms. Hsu joined the RCA Corporation, where she worked in positions related to marketing and planning before being promoted to Vice President for International Trade. Among her many successes at RCA, Ms. Hsu played a vital role in opening the China market for her company, a success enjoyed years before most companies were even contemplating the possibility of doing business in that country. The leadership and accomplishments of Ming Hsu in the arena of global commerce not only caught the attention of her superiors at RCA, but also that of New Jersey Governor Timothy Kean, who in 1982 appointed her Director of the New Jersey Department of Commerce Division of International Trade and Special Trade Representative, positions she held for 8 years. In those capacities, she led more than 20 trade missions all over the world, including to destinations such as Moscow, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore. In 1990, Ms. Hsu was appointed by President George H.W. Bush as a Commissioner on the Federal Maritime Commission where she served for almost 10 years under four different Chairmen. During her tenure, the Federal Maritime Commission tackled some of the most challenging issues related to shipping in recent years including the Ocean Shipping Reform Act; discriminatory port practices in Japan; and, market access issues in the People's Republic of China. Her ability to work closely with her fellow Commissioners, irrespective of their political affiliation, earned her the respect of her colleagues and she played a key role in assuring that matters before or affecting the Commission were considered carefully and completely and that the final results were equitable to all parties concerned. Ms. Hsu made many valuable contributions to the Federal Maritime Commission and shipping during what was a critical era for that agency and the industry it oversees. Though she left the Federal Maritime Commission in 1999, Ms. Hsu has remained actively involved in the shipping world working for the NOL Group the past 10 years. The NOL Group is the Singapore-based parent of one of the most historic shipping lines in the United States, American President Lines, which is celebrating the 160th anniversary of its founding this year. In her capacity as a senior advisor, Ms. Hsu has played a leading role for her company in addressing market access issues, providing guidance on regulatory matters, and serving as a sounding board on a variety of concerns related to trade and ocean transportation. Beyond her many impressive contributions to the transportation and trade communities, Ms. Hsu is a civic-minded individual who always has been, and continues to be, involved in many philanthropic and service related activities. Earlier in her career, Ms. Hsu served as a member of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, DACOWITS; a member of the New Jersey Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; the Advisory Committee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; as a trustee of the Newark Museum; and as an advisor to WNET, Channel 13, in New York. Her more recent volunteer and service efforts include: being a founding member and serving as a director of the Committee of 100, an organization of leading Chinese-American Citizens; serving as director on the J.T. Tai Foundation; being a sponsor of the Eisenhower Foundation; serving as a trustee of the Angel Island Project; serving as a trustee of the 1990 Institute; serving as a member of the Executive Committee of the Asian/Pacific American Legal Center; being a sponsor of the Hopkins-Nanjing Center; and serving as a member of the Advisory Board of the United States Merchant Marine Academy where she is a perennial presence at graduation, and in fact, she will be at the Academy in June to see the Class of 2008 receive their diplomas and commissions. I am told by those who know Ms. Hsu best that one of her greatest passions is mentoring others and toward that goal, she has taught college classes; worked to cultivate promising young professionals inside and outside of government; and simply made herself available in general to provide advice and guidance to those who seek the benefit of her many years of experience. During her tenure at the Federal Maritime Commission, one of her administrative accomplishments was preparing a whole generation of Senior Executive Service employees, many of whom continue to serve at that agency today. Madam Speaker, throughout her career, Ming Hsu has been a pioneer, someone unafraid of a challenge and an individual who has repeatedly distinguished herself, yet doing so with graciousness and good will. She is an impressive and amazing woman who we thank for her selfless service in so many capacities and who we wish good health and good fortune in the years to come.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

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

Mr. MICA. I have at this time no further speakers. I will reserve the balance of my time for my closing remarks and whatever time that Mr. Oberstar chooses to take, or if he needs additional time, I will be glad to assist him.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I don't rise in opposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment. In fact, he's looking for solutions in his district, in his area to provide commuter service to get people out of their cars to deal with increased congestion and high-rising fuel costs. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania is no different from the gentleman from Connecticut, from the gentlewoman from Arizona, the gentleman from California, from the gentleman from Ohio. We're drowning in congestion in this country. This bill provides a first opportunity to look at cost-effective ways of providing that service. So we've got to support commuter rail across the Nation. We've got to take some of these underutilized urban rail corridors that formally serve freight and convert those to commuter rail systems. We've got to find a host of solutions and incorporate private sector initiatives in these to make it happen because they can bring projects in on time and under budget and at the lowest cost possible. It is true that we may have to subsidize commuter rail service, long- distance service, and some high-speed service, but we want that at the minimum cost to the taxpayer, the maximum benefit to those that we need to serve. So we will support the amendment, but again, what you hear from the gentleman from Pennsylvania is what we're hearing from 435 congressional districts.

Mr. MICA. I'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the Rail Subcommittee, Mr. Shuster from Pennsylvania, a total of 6 minutes; 5 minutes for his presentation and 1 minute for a colloquy with the gentlelady from Ohio.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I brought this chart that shows $4.05 a gallon gasoline today. That is the average national cost. In some jurisdictions it is more. This is not an energy policy. This is not acceptable to the American people, $4.05 a gallon gasoline. First of all, I strongly support the manager's amendment. Contained in it are provisions that we would have high-speed rail service. We heard the gentleman, the former Governor of Delaware, Mr. Castle, the distinguished Representative now from Delaware, talk about having stops. I think when I visited Wilmington, when I visited Philadelphia and New York and stops along the way, people were excited about this proposal, because it offered them an option to expensive gasoline. The proposal that we bring forward is revolutionary. It does allow the Secretary of Transportation to take proposals. The reason we took the Northeast Corridor first is because that is the only real estate and asset that Amtrak wholly owns, almost all of it all the way to Boston. There is a little bit between New York and Boston that they don't own. That is why we took the first leg of this high speed proposal from Washington, D.C., right down the block to downtown Manhattan. We don't specify technology, but we say it must be there within 2 hours, and we have a provision that assures stops along the way. Revolutionary. Again, what it would do for air travel congestion would be monumental for this Nation. This isn't limited to the Northeast Corridor, that first segment. Everyone has a possibility of doing that through the provision Mr. Shuster, Ms. Brown and Mr. Oberstar worked out. We also have the possibility of opening for the first time public- private partnerships cutting the cost and the subsidy of some of the money-losing routes and bringing in private sector innovation. This whole attempt today, again, is revolutionary. So, again, this outlines the high-speed rail proposal, and it shows that it is not just limited to Washington and to New York. It is open to the entire Nation, and it provides a cost-effective alternative to just saying no, to trying to zero out Amtrak, and to not having high- speed rail passenger service either in that corridor or any other corridor of the United States. So I urge adoption of the manager's amendment and I urge passage of the final bill. I think most of the amendments are acceptable. We have a couple of questions on them. They will be debated here and Members will have to pick and choose between those amendments. But, all in all, this is a good, bipartisan effort to get us away from being dependent on $4.05 gasoline, escalating energy costs and limited choices for the traveling public. This is a very significant step forward, and I thank again Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown and Mr. Shuster.

Mr. MICA. Is it possible for me to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas?

Mr. MICA. I want to make sure I do everything by the rules, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to insert in the Record a letter by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, commonly known as AASHTO, in support of the measure and also a letter from the Association of American Railroads in support of this measure. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, June 10, 2008. Hon. John L. Mica, Ranking Republican Member, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Mica: On behalf of the Standing Committee on Rail Transportation and the Intercity Passenger Rail Leadership Group of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), I am writing to support House passage of H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. The States have been leading the way in developing rail corridors through investment in capital projects to increase capacity, reduce travel times and improve on-time performance. In addition, 14 states support intercity passenger rail through payment of operating costs on additional frequencies on routes. According to a survey by AASHTO, at least 35 states are developing intercity passenger rail plans for additional future service. I would like to thank you for including funding for the intercity passenger rail capital grant program to assist states in improving infrastructure on intercity passenger rail routes. As you know, intercity passenger rail ridership across the United States is on the rise in part due to congestion on the highways and at the airports and the rising cost of gasoline. Having another truly viable transportation option in intercity passenger rail will give consumers another choice in both business and leisure travel and a choice that is the most environmentally friendly. Intercity Passenger Rail consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger mile than airlines and 21 percent less per passenger mile than automobiles. The average intercity passenger rail train produces 60 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile than the average auto, and half the carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile of an airplane. For too long, intercity passenger rail has been an underutilized mode in our national transportation system. With this historic legislation, you will make intercity passenger rail competitive and marketable to an anxious public. The time for intercity passenger rail investment is now. I commend you for your leadership and for moving this legislation so quickly and pledge my support to the effort. Sincerely, Astrid C. Glynn, Chair.

Mr. MICA. I continue to reserve.

Mr. MICA. Then I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. MICA. Continuing to reserve, and I would be glad to yield some time to the other side if they do need it.

Mr. MICA. Again how much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).