John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on rollcall 84. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the measure.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and special contributions of Diane Wolf who passed away unexpectedly at age 53 on January 12, 2008. Our nation's capital city has lost one of its great cultural patrons. The Wolf family has lost a beloved daughter, sister and loved one and I have lost a wonderful friend. Diane Wolf was blessed to be part of one of America's most successful families. Through the years, I have had the privilege of knowing and working with her. She devoted her boundless energy, time and resources to advance history, art and culture not only for Washington, D.C., but also for the people of our country. I had the honor of working with her to raise private funds for construction of the new visitor center for our U.S. Capitol building. Her service on numerous boards aided the National Archives, the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art, and the Smithsonian Institution. In New York City, Diane Wolf was renowned for her work and support of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art, and the Frick Collection. Miss Wolf was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to serve on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. She also served on the U.S. Senate Preservation Board of Trustees, and the Washington National Opera Board of Trustees. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and with a master's degree from Columbia University, she went on to earn a law degree from Georgetown University. Miss Wolf also served as president of the Capitol Hill Federal Bar Association. Of all the individuals I have worked with in our nation's capitol during the past three decades, no one has been more personally dedicated to making a difference in promoting artistic and cultural endeavors than Diane Wolf. Miss Wolf was born in Cheyenne, Wyoming and raised in Denver, maintained residences in New York City and Washington, D.C. To her parents, Erving and Joyce Wolf; and two brothers, Daniel Wolf and Matthew Wolf; and on behalf of the House of Representatives, we extend our deepest sympathy.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Sergeant Bryan J. Tutten, 33, who died Christmas Day, December 25, 2007 while serving our nation in Iraq during his second tour of duty. 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 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, I rise to pay tribute to a wonderful friend and a great leader in transportation, both in Texas and our Nation, the Hon. Richard F. (``Ric'') Williamson. His sudden passing on December 30, 2007 was an incredible loss to his family, the State of Texas and our country. It has been my honor to know and work with Ric during his service as Texas Commissioner of Transportation. From our first meeting, I knew I had a found a friend, a leader, and a key supporter of building our Nation's infrastructure. Rick's passing is a tremendous loss to all those who respected his leadership and brilliance in government's important work to build the national transportation system. I join the Texas Congressional Delegation and all who knew and worked with Ric in extending our sincere condolences to his wife and family. As chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, Ric crafted creative, major, and often controversial decisions about the future of the State's transportation system. He was a strong proponent of toll roads and public-private partnerships as a solution to meet the State's transportation needs and funding shortfalls. Ric's policies and positions were always well thought-out and passionately defended. He always did what he thought would best serve the transportation needs of the State, and many believe that his support for public-private partnerships was instrumental in inspiring other States to consider similar deals as a way to finance new highway construction or to provide long-range, predictable State revenues. Ric was a native of Abilene, Texas and graduated from University of Texas at Austin in 1974. In 1985, Ric was elected to the Texas Legislature, as a Democrat, and served 13 years until he left in 1998 as a Republican. Serving on the legislature's House Appropriations Committee, he was one of the ``Pit Bulls,'' conservative lawmakers who questioned how the state spent its money. He believed that agencies should get money based on the goals they set and met, a concept known as performance-based budgeting, which is used today in the Texas budget process. During his State House years, Ric was known as a maverick, and earned the nickname ``Nitro'' for his energy. He was an independent and aggressive leader who preferred making good policy over playing politics. In 2001, Governor Perry appointed Ric to serve on the five-person Commission that oversees statewide activities of the Texas Department of Transportation. In 2004, he became the Commission's chairman. His tenure at the Commission was sometimes controversial, but, as my friend and colleague from the 26th district in Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess, said, Ric Williamson was ``unafraid to challenge the status quo, and was a highly regarded leader bringing innovative ideas to provide safe, economic and reliable transportation to improve the daily lives of Texans.'' Ric is survived by his wife Mary Ann Williamson and three daughters, Melissa Meyer, Katherine Strange, and Sara Williamson, as well as two grandchildren. In closing, I will quote another friend of Ric's, the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. ``Texas has lost a proud son, as has the nation's transportation community.'' Ric Williamson was a visionary leader and a straight talker. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. The AAMVA will be holding their 2008 annual meeting in Orlando, Florida. In 1932, growth in the motor vehicle population, increasing interstate travel, and an increase in death and injuries on the highways highlighted the need for a national organization for uniform interstate laws and programs. In response, representatives of the States, recognizing this need for uniform and reciprocal administration of motor vehicle laws, formed the American Conference of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Subsequently in 1933 the group renamed itself the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, or AAMVA. AAMVA has been the recognized North American authority for driver licensing and motor vehicle administration. AAMVA's U.S. and Canadian members have worked collaboratively to support and improve motor vehicle administration, safety, identification security and law enforcement. AAMVA has served as a liaison with other levels of government and the private sector, and its development and research activities have provided guidelines for more effective public service. AAMVA has fostered a tradition of service in the motor vehicle and law enforcement professions, providing outstanding service to the community through superb customer service initiatives, information technology, safety, and the best in public affairs and consumer educational programs throughout North America. I would like to commend the many achievements of AAMVA and encourage AAMVA to continue its tradition of excellence in service to motorists through its advocacy of improving highway safety.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join in recognizing the distinguished career of one of my former colleagues, the Honorable Dan Miller of Bradenton, FL. My friendship with Dan actually dates back more than four decades to 1962, when we were best friends and members of the Delta Chi fraternity at the University of Florida. Throughout my time in college, our post-college years and finally our years serving in the House of Representatives together from the great State of Florida, I have always cherished his friendship, admired his public service and enjoyed knowing his wife Glenda and their wonderful family. Dan Miller will always be remembered in these Halls for his congenial nature, his leadership on a host of issues, and his commitment to fiscal restraint. When he ran for Congress, he was a staunch advocate of shrinking the size and scope of the Federal Government and reducing the impact of onerous Federal regulation in the lives of average Americans. He remained true to his convictions throughout his 10 years in this institution and would be proud to know that he will be remembered that way. He served as a Member of Congress with an appreciation for the history around him and a passion for the job and the goals he came to Washington to achieve that we would all be well- served to emulate. I know that I join family friends and colleagues in supporting this well-deserved recognition by Congress.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I too want to welcome back Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar, he and I have had the great experience of working since 15 years ago when I came to Congress. He was chairman of Aviation. I became the ranking member on the Republican side when he became Chair of the committee. We had a great year. We probably passed more legislation than any other committee. We passed an historic water resources bill. We actually did, I think, the 107th override of a Presidential veto. We agreed in a bipartisan fashion to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. I am sorry Mr. Oberstar wasn't here to see that glorious day. It is very lonely not having either him fighting with you or not having him here to fight with. But we are pleased he is back, and hopefully had an experienced Republican physician doing all those titanium additions to his spine. But he looks great and we are pleased to have him here. I am also pleased that through his leadership, and a joint bipartisan effort, and I wrote him on December 5, and I will include this letter as part of the Record, saying while I oppose taking other measures out of the pending FAA reauthorization, I want to keep the pressure on, we need to pass that bill, that there is a particular provision whose interest is paramount to that legislation, and that is doing away with an obsolete and unfair FAA mandatory retirement rule that every day is penalizing our pilots. In fact, more than 50 of our Nation's most experienced pilots of commercial airliners are forced to retire. Now, this bill is entitled the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act. I would like to also give a personal example of why I think this is important. The title is important. I might even want to amend the title in honor of one of the guys I went to college with, a buddy of mine. His name is Bob Fobes. Most people in Congress don't know Bob Fobes, but Bob and I were fraternity brothers, went to the University of Florida. Let me tell you, there is nobody more devoted as far as a pilot. I think the only thing that Bob is devoted to, other than his wife Laurie and his family, is flying, and Bob has not failed on any occasion to mention to me that he is going to be affected by this particular outdated rule that was passed nearly a half a century ago when males and females didn't live as long as they do in our society. So we are addressing something that personally affects folks like Bob Fobes and thousands of other pilots who are dedicated to one of the great professions that has given the world and America in particular a magic carpet to get around to places that people would not have even imagined they could be 50 years ago. As of November 2006, we also know that foreign airline pilots are allowed to fly up to age 65, so our counterparts across the Atlantic are doing this. The U.S. sets up a double standard, unfortunately, and I think it is a disadvantage to the flying public to, again, not have our most experienced individuals in the cockpit and being able to fly. As Chairman Oberstar pointed out, there are additional protections here for the flying public that these individuals will be subject to, even more medical exams, making certain that they are fit and capable even in these additional years that we grant. The Freedom to Fly Act, H.R. 1125, was introduced earlier into the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by one of our outstanding leaders in aviation, also a pilot, Robin Hayes, the gentleman from North Carolina, and he has 313 bipartisan sponsors on his legislation. Robin Hayes cannot be here, so I also wanted to give credit to not only Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Costello and Mr. Petri, but also Robin Hayes, who has worked tirelessly to make certain that this legislation and this particular measure comes before the House. This is the right thing to do at the right time. I would like to thank again all those who have been involved, and some of the staff members on both sides of the aisle who helped bring this measure forward. I encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this very sensible and desperately needed legislation. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, December 5, 2007. Hon. James L. Oberstar, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oberstar: It is very clear that legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration will not be signed into law before the end of this year. Therefore, I strongly believe it is our obligation and this Committee's responsibility to see to it that our most experienced pilots are permitted to continue flying commercial aircraft. You and I have both received bipartisan request letters from our colleagues urging passage of legislation to increase the current retirement age for thousands of commercial airline pilots across the country. Moreover, H.R. 1125, The Freedom to Fly Act, has 313 bipartisan cosponsors, including many Members who serve on our Committee. I look forward to working with you to move a compromise bill before Congress adjourns this session. Sincerely, John L. Mica, Ranking Republican Member.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I had the honor and privilege of chairing the House Aviation Subcommittee for some 6 years. I inherited that responsibility some months after September 11 and concluded my service as the Chair of that important subcommittee January of this year. I now am the ranking member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Just by way of my background, I have been involved in both the creation of TSA and the evolution of TSA over these years, and, trying to make certain, as I know Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite is doing, Representative Nita Lowey is trying to do, and I think they are very well intended and actually I hope to work with them, I just found out about this proposal coming up today last night, and I do pledge to work with them to try to make their intent the most effective intent, protecting the American public. And I know that is what Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite does. That is her intent. And I think that is Mrs. Lowey's intent here. But what we have got to do is make certain that we aren't doing something that really won't achieve the results. And I think the normal screening of workers, as it has been done as we screen passengers, would not be that effective. So I have no objection to a demonstration project, but I think what we need is one that is sophisticated to try to deal with finding out what the bad intent of supposedly good aviation system workers may be. Most of what we have at the airport today, I hate to tell you, the technology does not deal with the current threat. The current threat is not someone taking a gun or a weapon, as we traditionally know it, through airport screening checkpoints. In fact, USA Today has shown even how flawed this system is, in revealing some of the results of taking through not only those type items but also other items that may pose a risk today. The problem we have is people with bad intent who obtain employment in this industry can do great harm. What we need to do is focus the screening on going after that bad intent, because once they get past the worker screening or passenger screening point, a worker has access to chemicals, substances, tools, a treasure trove of items that can be used to take down an aircraft, and that is what we want to prevent. So I am not going to try to kill this measure. That is not my intent. In fact, I didn't come out here to call for a roll call vote on this. But what I would like to do is work with them to see that their intent, which is to make certain that workers who may pose danger to the system, we find a way to screen them that would be most effective in protecting our passengers. The worst thing we can do, and I will tell you this, I helped create the Department of Homeland Security, I helped author the TSA bill. But TSA and the Department of Homeland Security is 177,000 employees. I compare it to sort of like pigeons you may see in a plaza, and when Congress claps its hands, they will all fly off in whatever direction we send them, but it may not always be the best-intended. I give you one final example. We ban lighters from being carried onboard aircraft. We ban lighters, but we didn't ban cell phones or cameras with a battery. Here's my cell phone. This is much more dangerous as an ignition electronic device than any lighter that you can carry onboard. So sometimes we do things here with good intentions, like the lighter ban, but they may not have the results we would like to achieve. So I came here to tell both of the sponsors I appreciate what they are trying to do, but I think we can take and craft their demonstration project into a demonstration project that truly screens workers in a way that will be beneficial to catch the potentially bad players and that we can make this system safer. So I compliment you on your well-intended efforts. I pledge to work with you, and we will take it from there.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, one of the greatest voices to ever be heard in these Chambers has been lost to the ages. I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend, a great American and my former colleague, Henry Hyde. Tomorrow in Illinois, one of the State's most capable and eloquent Members of Congress will be laid to rest. It was my distinct honor to meet Henry Hyde, to serve with Henry Hyde and to call Henry Hyde my friend. In this House Chamber over the past 150 years, there have been many who have spoken. I submit that if you had the privilege to hear Henry Hyde speak here, you were indeed most fortunate. In this House of Representatives over the past several centuries, there have been many distinguished individuals. I submit that not only was Henry Hyde one of the most distinguished, but also one of the most appreciated individuals, one of the finest gentlemen, one of the greatest Americans to serve in this, the people's House. Whether he was defending the unborn or relating his position to us on any matter before this House, Henry Hyde always spoke with dignity, conviction, principle and eloquence. When Henry Hyde addressed this House, its Members and all Americans listened. While everyone who knew Henry Hyde can tell us a very special story and personal experience about knowing Henry Hyde, there are several memories that I will always fondly cherish and remember. I recall when Henry came to my district, came to my home in Florida. I will never forget when Henry Hyde stopped me, actually in this aisleway, here on the floor of the House, and in that aisleway he complimented me on my remarks that day. Imagine, Henry Hyde, the master orator, praising such common words. How honored I was by his compliment to so junior a Member on that day. There are many other stories I can tell about Henry Hyde and I know we can all share the other stories, but let me tell you in closing to relate one of my last memories of this great man. I had the privilege of traveling with Henry to the United States European interparliamentary meetings overseas, and on my last trip with Henry to one of these meetings, one of the last times that Henry Hyde as I recall him serving as chairman of the International Relations Committee, we were flying together with others across the Atlantic to make our next day's meeting. I woke up in the middle of the night and everyone in the cabin on the plane was sleeping, with one exception, and that was Henry Hyde. Some of you may recall Henry had been quite ill towards the end of his service. He required assistance to walk, and I knew how uncomfortable and how difficult it was for him to travel. But here was Henry Hyde so committed to his responsibility, while in such great personal pain and discomfort that he could not rest, he had to sit up in his chair all night, but he was fulfilling his duties and his responsibilities. I knew that night and I knew when I first met him, I knew also when I first heard him, and I have known, and I have been honored to call him my friend, I have had the opportunity to know a great man, a great American, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). To Henry's wife and family, and on behalf of all the people of the Seventh Congressional District of Florida, and personally, I extend my deepest sympathies.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, not only will the Americans receive a great surprise with a tax increase with the so-called energy bill that was just passed by the House of Representatives, and higher fuel costs; I want to announce, as the Republican leader on the Transportation Committee, you've also depleted the highway trust fund by some $2.1 billion in this measure. The Congressional Budget Office is already predicting a $5 billion deficit in the highway trust fund by 2009. Now, my friends in Congress, we can't keep this game up. Unfortunately, in the full year 2007 appropriations resolution that passed the House, we knocked another $3.47 billion and rescinded that from the highway trust fund, and another $3 billion recession from the highway program in the 2008 bill that passed the House recently. Unfortunately, the game being played with our Nation's highway trust fund has consequences, and we will pay.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I support recognizing emancipation and honoring the contributions of slaves in the construction of the Capitol. However, as I discussed in the subcommittee hearing and full committee markup, I have concerns about renaming the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center. Throughout the history of the Capitol, none of the monumental spaces, such as the House and Senate chambers or the Rotunda, have been named after specific individuals or events in history. Instead, these great spaces of the Capitol have long been called by their functional names. By doing so, all people regardless of their race, ethnic heritage, contributions, or human travails are equally recognized. These spaces are dramatic because of their physical settings and the unique historical events that took place within their walls. Similarly, the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center will become a monumental space with its own unique history; and just as those spaces have not been named, I believe the Great Hall should be reserved and left to honor all Americans. While I do not believe it is appropriate to rename the Great Hall, I do believe that it is important for Congress to acknowledge and honor the contributions slaves made to the Capitol. In the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management and again in the full committee markup of this legislation, I recommended that other spaces could better acknowledge emancipation and honor the slaves that helped build the Capitol. It would be most appropriate to name the exhibition hall that will provide an important historical context to the name Emancipation Hall. It would also provide visitors an opportunity to learn about and pay tribute to emancipation. One of the first recommendations I made as a member of the Capitol Preservation Commission was to create a first class museum space within the CVC. I proposed the highest level museum space so America could exhibit some of the Nation's treasurers-- like the Emancipation Proclamation--which are rarely viewed by the public. The exhibition hall will be 16,500 square feet. Outside of the National Archives Building, this will be our Nation's finest exhibition space. This hall will not only honor those who built the Capitol, but provide information about their contributions to American history. This exhibition hall will display and prominently house the catafalque that was built to support the casket of Abraham Lincoln--the Great Emancipator. This is the original funeral bier used as the Great Emancipator lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda. This hall will contain permanent exhibits on the Constitution and the post-Civil War amendments proposed by Congress and ratified by the States to abolish slavery, to guarantee equal protection under the law, and to ensure the right to vote. This beautiful hall will have strong historical and contextual links to emancipation. It will be the primary venue for acknowledging and commemorating the slaves who helped build the Capitol and the country. It will help deepen the understanding of our Nation's long struggle with slavery and its ultimate abolition for all who visit here. For all of these reasons, nothing could be more appropriate or significant than naming this area of the Capitol Visitor Center Emancipation Hall. Another possible Emancipation naming CVC venue would be the congressional auditorium. While it does not have the strong links to emancipation as the exhibition hall, it is the most significant functional space in the facility, a place where leaders will gather to discuss important ideas of their time. The auditorium is a grand space that is being designed to serve as an alternative House Chamber. Except for the current House and Senate Chambers, no other venue in the Capitol has such an important purpose. The name Emancipation Hall would serve as a valuable reminder of courage, leadership, and our unique commitment to advance the cause of human freedom and fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. As such, I believe it would be appropriate and fitting to name the facility Emancipation Hall. In sum, I believe there are more appropriate areas in the Capitol Visitor Center to name Emancipation Hall. Additionally, we have a tradition of leaving the monumental spaces of the Capitol un-named. As a monumental space in, and an introduction to, the Capitol, the Great Hall should retain its current functional name like the other great spaces within the Capitol.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to yield myself one-half minute for the purpose of an introduction, and then I am going to yield 3 minutes to the individual I want to introduce. Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, it is now one of the greatest pleasures I have had to introduce a gentleman who I got to know for a brief period of time. He came into this House, and he has done an incredible job of representation in a difficult time for his State of Louisiana. I had the chance to go down with him and look at infrastructure projects after the damage. I think the people of Louisiana recognized, in an unprecedented historic fashion, his leadership, in electing him Governor in a tide that was historic in proportions. So, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the gentleman and future Governor of the State of Louisiana, our colleague, Mr. Jindal, the gentleman from Louisiana, again, I recognize for 3 minutes.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of the leaders in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the Republican side, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield to a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect; he is also the ranking member of the Water Resources Committee, has done an excellent job on this bill working in a bipartisan effort. It is my honor to yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. MICA. I will continue to reserve until the last speaker.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes at this time to the senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the former immediate past chair of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of the true fiscal conservatives of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MICA. My only parliamentary inquiry is, in fact, that we are now in fact taking up the WRDA veto override, and that debate will take up 1 hour, and the time has been equally divided. Is that the correct parliamentary procedure or order of business?

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset, I have supported President Bush on many occasions. In fact, I pulled a list of some 43 measures on which I supported the President in an attempt to sustain a veto. But today, my colleagues, I must respectfully disagree with President Bush's veto of this important and long overdue Water Resources Development Act. I believe it's far too important for both our Nation and for my State of Florida and, again, for all the projects that are in the backlog. I'm disappointed the President and the White House have decided to veto this legislation that includes many critically needed infrastructure and restoration projects. For the first time, you've heard this since 2000, the year 2000, Congress will enact legislation authorizing, and this is authorizing, we are setting Congress's priorities for authorization. All of these projects in this bill must come back for approval for funding. But this particular bill includes all of the water resource projects to restore our endangered ecosystems across the country, construct new levees, dams, rebuild our beaches, and work on other important water resources projects. A significant portion of the bill, I might say, deals with Everglades restoration, something that we've been working on for years. And also another significant portion of this legislation deals with work and reconstruction of some of our water resources projects in the damaged gulf of the United States. There's been, as you've heard, a water resources bill introduced in every Congress since 2000; however, controversies always dash the hopes of approving a measure. After I assumed responsibility for ranking member of the House Republican leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I met with the new chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and I sat down and we tried to decide what were our priorities. And this is a great example of how this body should work. This is a bipartisan measure. Mr. Oberstar, this was one of his priorities. He worked on it for a number of years. I came new to my leadership position, but pledged to work with him; and we did work together on this. Let me say also, ironically, I feel sad today that Mr. Oberstar is not joining us. Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers are with him. He's recovering from surgery yesterday which he had scheduled some time in advance. But he served this House for 32 years before he became the chairman of T & I. He made a commitment, a bipartisan commitment to work together, and we did that. And when you do that in this House, you can achieve anything. And in a few minutes we will achieve an override of the President's veto because we worked together in a bipartisan manner to rebuild our Nation's water resources. Let me say also that earmarks, and this contains a number of projects, earmarks have gotten a somewhat tainted reputation and were criticized. But what we did, and what I tried to do on the Republican side, was make certain that this was a transparent process. Every Republican House project was publicly submitted, publicly available for review, and very carefully vetted. In fact, Mr. Oberstar and I cut more than 100 projects from the 2005 proposed House-passed WRDA proposal that did not pass. The 2007 WRDA bill addresses what I believe are the important needs of our Nation. Again, I think this is a good bill that represents investment in America. These investments will improve trade, protect our homes, our businesses from flood damages, and from other ravages of Mother Nature we've seen. They'll enhance our quality of life by restoring aquatic ecosystems like in the State of Florida with the Everglades restoration. This legislation ensures our ports and waterways remain viable in the international marketplace by authorizing critical navigational deepening projects. Maritime commerce is absolutely essential to the future of our economy. Congestion at an outdated port or waterway is becoming a national economic issue, and this bill addresses that economic problem. Products moving into our waterways aid our environment and lessen highway and rail congestion. Efficient waterways must be, in fact, an integral part of America's intermodal transportation system, and this bill helps do that. To maintain our place in the global economy, the United States must have modern ports and waterways. Our ports and waterways need to be improved to handle additional traffic. And what's coming are mega- ships, a new class of larger liners and freighters that are coming. We have almost no ports that can handle that type of traffic. This conference report addresses these needs in several ways, including improvements to waterways in my State of Florida, as well as in Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, and other areas. In addition, this bill authorizes seven new locks and other navigational improvements on the upper Mississippi River. The WRDA conference report authorizes critical projects to provide flood protection to millions of Americans. And we've all seen that if we neglect our waterway infrastructure or our water protection system, you've heard that adage, we pay now or we pay later. Well, I can tell you we'll pay much later if we don't protect ourselves from, again, reducing the potential flood damage that we've seen. This bill includes many projects that protect our cities from floods and also from those coastal storms we've experienced. The Corps of Engineers is the leader in planning and carrying out our environmental restoration projects. And this conference report that we will override a veto on in a few minutes is by far the greenest, most environmentally friendly Water Resources Development Act ever passed by Congress. This bill's major new focus is environmental restoration, and again, it contains the first work. In 2000 we authorized study of cleaning up the Everglades. This bill authorizes work on the Everglades. Everglades restoration, as I said, has been talked about for years. And it is a national ecological treasure that must be protected for future generations of Americans. I might say too that the restoration of the Everglades is in partnership with the State of Florida. And I have a message from a Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, was handed to me earlier: Greetings from Brazil, where he's now with 200 businessmen. And the Republican Governor of the State of Florida is urging that we override the President's veto, basically because of what I said about the Everglades and other critical water infrastructure projects in the State of Florida. This bill does not, as I said, guarantee funding. Money will have to be appropriated to meet these authorization levels; but it represents a critical commitment by this Congress to restore, again, an ecological jewel in Florida and water resources projects throughout the United States. Also addressed in the bill are policy issues that will improve how the Corps of Engineers actually conducts projects, and that's also important. There's a peer review process that I think is critical to monitoring and protecting whether the projects perform as designed. I know the President is concerned that the conference report authorizes more projects than could actually be funded. All of those projects may not ultimately receive funding from Congress. They have to come back to Congress, even after this authorization. But it is important that we authorize, through this conference report, a good list of investments from which the Congress can later prioritize funding. Finally, I know the White House has expressed concerns with this bill. However, again, the House bill in 2005 contained 784 projects. The House bill in 2007 that we worked to examine in a transparent manner the projects, contains 682. Over 100 projects were cut out of the previous House bill. Again, this was, I believe, an open and transparent and a bipartisan process that, hopefully, will restore some of the public's confidence in this process. And, finally, we have to realize that this bill, since we haven't passed one since 2000, represents the equivalent of three WRDA bills. When we had a backup in 1986 we, in fact, funded $11 billion worth of projects back in 1986 because we hadn't passed a bill in a long time. So while I wholeheartedly respect the President's veto, we, as Congress have a responsibility to provide for our Nation's resources and infrastructure, provide the leadership to get that job done. And I urge Members to support overriding the President's veto. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Understanding that Ms. Johnson will close, I yield myself the balance of our time. Now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we come to the close of the debate on overriding the Presidential veto. Today, indeed, has been a strange day. That is the interesting thing about politics and government in the United States of America. Look at the people who have spoken here; a future Governor. We have heard people who have had their homes destroyed, their property. We had a strange day here today. My side of the aisle ended up voting not to end a particular debate on a possible impeachment resolution of the Vice President. Here I am, a staunch supporter of the President's effort to maintain fiscal responsibility, supporting override of his veto. But this is a very difficult job. It is a difficult job for me. It is a difficult job for the President. I think we like to do everything we can. I think it is in the heart of the other side of the aisle, and I know in the heart of my fellow Republican Members to do as good a job as we can in representing people. I know the President has had to make some difficult choices coming into office with the events of September 11 and the terrorist threat that we face and the line drawn in the sand by al Qaeda and Iraq. And national security is our primary responsibility, but we also have responsibility to our infrastructure. So we have tried to sort out those priorities in this process. We do need an investment in our infrastructure. The President is right in, probably, his stance. I think we are right in our stance. This is an authorization bill. This is not a spending bill. It does prioritize for the Congress bills that have been carefully considered and projects that have been considered by Members, and Members make very sincere requests based on the conditions of their particular districts. It is a great system and it does work. I understand the President's commitment to fiscal responsibility, and I think we have tried to act in a responsible and good-steward fashion. In closing, I again want to thank Mr. Oberstar. Unfortunately, he is not with us today, on this day that he worked so hard for. I thank Ms. Johnson. I want to thank Mr. Baker, our ranking member, and all of those who have worked, particularly the staff: Jim Coon, our staff director; David Heymsfeld on the Democrat staff side; John Anderson and Ryan Seiger; all of the staff, those named and others, who have worked to bring this bill together, all with the same intent, to improve the lives, the resources and the condition of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another fiscal watchdog in the House, a leader in the Republican Study Group, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, this is the first time I have come out for a 1-minute address, and I think it is necessary that I also voice my disapproval with what is happening. Right now the Congress of the United States is at an 11 percent approval rating. And, unfortunately, the actions dealing with our veterans and military appropriations measures is going to, I think, further erode public confidence in this body. Right now in what is going to play out in the next number of hours, our military and our veterans, unfortunately, will be held hostage. Unfortunately, too, our veterans and our military are going to suffer from this, all in an attempt to try to, I guess, embarrass the President of the United States. But in turn we will be embarrassing, and further eroding confidence in, this House. We need to work together to pass in a bipartisan effort the funding for our troops and our veterans and stop the political games.