John Mica

Mr. MICA

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

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

Mr. MICA. If I may, if the gentlelady would yield, I look forward to working with you. I am delighted that your side of the aisle was willing to accept this amendment. I would like to work and move forward with you in a bipartisan effort. But in order to get one of the two amendments to work with my side of the aisle in fairness and not pass a mandatory provision, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and work with the gentlelady and the committee and thank everyone for their consideration.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have this amendment No. 4 which would clarify the small business set-aside provisions of the Small Business Act and require that it, in fact, apply to Federal contracts not excluding Federal supply schedule and multiple award scheduled holders. Now, this is a mandatory provision, and I have accepted some of the objections from my side of the aisle in not moving forward with this particular provision. I do have the next amendment in line, which does deal with a similar issue, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Mr. MICA. How much time do I have remaining, might I inquire.

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

Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, Mr. Chabot and the Chair of the Small Business Committee, I am pleased to present another amendment, as I indicated in withdrawing the first amendment, that is not mandatory in nature, but does bring to light and address some of the problems that we have had with an interpretation of acquisitions under the GSA Federal supply schedule, some different interpretation. This amendment would state that it is, in fact, a sense of the House of Representatives that small business set-asides should not be excluded from any acquisitions under the General Services Administration Federal supply schedule.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I won't take all of that minute, but I do again want to thank again the gentlelady, the Chair of the SBA Committee, and Mr. Chabot, the ranking member. This is a great example of how government should work, having a constituent, a small business person in my district, bring unfairness, the lack of definition about procedures here with the SBA and GSA, two government agencies, and try to get a resolution. I am delighted to be here. I am trying to think back in 15 years if I have ever brought an amendment up and have everybody agree on it like this. I don't think so, but it's a special occasion.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Shuster, for yielding me time, and also for managing the time today on this bill. Mr. Shuster is doing an outstanding job in leading the Republican side of the Rail Subcommittee, and I appreciate his fine efforts. Also, the great efforts of my colleague from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who chairs the subcommittee. And indeed, we are fortunate to have someone with Mr. Oberstar's leadership at our helm, chairing the committee after a long wait of some 32 years. I know this has been one of his priorities, rail safety, and I'm pleased that he has an opportunity to bring his bill to the floor today. Now, of course, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my colleagues, we all want safe rail, we want safe infrastructure in our Nation, and it is important that we do everything possible to move safety forward and to make certain that freight rail, passenger rail, that our crossings, that those that work and are employed in this great industry are as safe as possible. And I think that that was the original intent. Now, let me say that I have an agreement with Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown and Mr. Shuster to support this bill on passage, and I intend to put my card in the reader and I will vote ``yes.'' That doesn't prohibit me from talking a little bit about the bill and the genesis of this bill. Now, the intent is one thing about this legislation, and I think, again, it was safety and well-intended. But unfortunately, I think we started out with a bad bill. The other side won the election, and there were some presents to be presented to labor. This doesn't have a red bow on it. But this started out as something I think that was sort of a gift to labor from the election. It is nice to approach legislation from that standpoint. But I think we have been able to take what I consider a very bad bill, that its intention was to actually codify some of the labor work rules relating to our rail industry. We have taken that bad legislation, and we have made it a little bit better. I think we still have a ways to go. There are some good things in this. Mr. Oberstar pointed out that we did take the number one recommendation of the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board. That is the board that does investigate accidents. It is important that we take from them the best information they have possible and then translate that into legislative action so that accident doesn't occur. So, one, we have taken their recommendation, a positive train separation, and it is part of this bill. I am complimentary of that. I think Mr. Graves, the gentleman from Missouri, a member of our committee and outstanding subcommittee Chair, I am sorry, ranking member, of the Public Buildings Subcommittee, his crossing prioritization for changing out dangerous crossings is an excellent provision. I think also that there is a good provision in this for acquiring some of the technical equipment. You have to understand, Mr. Shuster said there are very few accidents. In fact, the latest statistics that we have, there were 16 employee deaths in 2006. Only six of the deaths involved train accidents. So it is a very low number. That is compared to 25 of 33 employee deaths in 1996. So there is substantial improvement in that regard. But if you look at some of the factors, and we have the factors that cause train accidents, you find the human factor is number one. It accounts for some 35, almost 36 percent of train accidents. This bill doesn't do enough, really, to deal with the human factors, in my opinion. Some of that involves training and some other things that we should be addressing. The second is track defects. I had a chance, when I was going to college, I worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week on the rail to finance my college education, part of it, and I got to see some of what happens on the railroads firsthand. Track defects today are very difficult to detect just by some of the measures that we have, for example, in this bill. This bill mandates that we have almost a doubling of track inspectors. Now, that is a nice gift also to the unions. We will get a few more union members. But is that what we need when the way to really detect track defects is with the latest technology and equipment? I did say the bill has authorization for acquisition of, I think, six additional track testing pieces of equipment. But if we really want to do that, we should be spending not just more money on bodies and inspectors and routine inspections, increasing those, kind of makework; we should be, first of all, making certain that we have a risk-based inspection system. When I become chairman of Aviation, that was one of the things we did in Aviation, and I gave my blessings to, back in 1991. We have enjoyed the safest period of aviation safety, passenger aircraft safety, in the history of our Nation. I believe that is because it is a risk-based system. Rather than going out on a Monday, we are going to inspect this piece of equipment and then we schedule that for the next month on Monday and we go back and we do it and we add inspectors, we look at where the risks are and that is where we put our resources. It is not always how much we spend; it is how we spend it and how we apply those dollars. Again, I have some questions about the approach in this bill. We do have an agreement. I am pleased to support this. My hope is that we can take this bill as we have done working with Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Brown, Mr. Shuster, and we can craft it into a better piece of legislation as it goes hopefully through conference, and I will support it. In closing, there are some questions about the amendments. I will support the manager's amendment which I agreed to. The other three Members have asked me, and I say, you pick and choose. Mr. Oberstar and I did not make the decision on the three other amendments the Rules Committee brought forth, and you will have to assess them as to their own merits. It is important that we take this legislation up. It is important that we move together in a bipartisan fashion. I have a little bit different set of priorities, again, on some of the issues that we have addressed in the legislation. But I have a fond hope that through a bipartisan future effort we can approve this legislation and continue to make certain that our rail employees, our rail passengers and those that cross the railroad tracks in our communities are safe.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to SGT Adam Quinn, 22, who died October 6, 2007 while serving our Nation in Afghanistan. Prior to joining the Army, Adam graduated from DeLand High School in DeLand, Florida where he was a leader in the Junior ROTC program. He also attended the First United Methodist Church in DeLand with his family. Adam joined the Army and took great pride in serving his country. His colleagues remember a compassionate individual who cared deeply for others while his family recalls his uncanny ability to make people laugh. Adam's character earned him the respect of his family, friends and fellow soldiers. He was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina which was deployed to Afghanistan. Adam served with great distinction--the recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart and numerous other awards and citations. We should all remember Adam's courage and his ultimate sacrifice for our nation. The freedom and liberty we enjoy and the peace in the world for others for which he fought are part of the great legacy that SGT Adam Quinn leaves behind. He was laid to rest at Oakdale Cemetery in DeLand, Florida on October 12. To Adam's wife, Faye; their child who will arrive in March of 2008; his parents, Charles and Sherry; his brother, Asa; and his entire family, we extend our deepest sympathy. Madam Speaker, because of SGT Adam Quinn's sacrifice for our country, I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing his service in our Nation's Armed Forces and remembering both his life and his dedication to the United States of America.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield, at this time, 3\1/2\ minutes, and ask also the Chair of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, if he would join me in this time as I yield to Mr. Garrett for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and say I have the greatest respect for the gentleman who just spoke, but I think the facts are a little bit different on cutting the air traffic controllers' compensation. This chart, in fact, shows an 81 percent salary increase since 1998. Unfortunately, also, there's a disparity now of almost 40 percent between air traffic controllers and other FAA employees in what they receive as far as increases. So that just doesn't jibe with the facts. And I have the respect of the air traffic controllers, and they should be adequately compensated, and I'll support that. But we can't do an unprecedented reach-back and try to do something that's not fair to everyone. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, we have a distinguished Member from Tennessee on the other side of the aisle who needs some time, and we have some extra time, so I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and welcome his commentary.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Republican leader of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. MICA. Yes.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire about the remaining time on both sides?

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Minnesota has the right to close. He deserves more than 45 seconds. I would like to, at the appropriate time, yield him 45 additional seconds, which would give him 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time. Just in closing for my part, again I want to thank the chairmen of both the subcommittee and the full committee and our ranking member, Mr. Petri, for their work. And I said at the beginning, we have an obligation to move this process forward. Mr. Petri and I are committed to that. Now, we do disagree with some of the provisions that have been incorporated into this measure. We will cast our votes in opposition. But we are trying to move this forward. We have a responsibility. We have an aviation system that is approaching a meltdown. We have an increase in passengers, and we want the safest possible system. So in that spirit we are going to move forward, and I hope that we can improve the bill if we can get it to conference and if we can move forward. Mr. Chairman, with that pledge, I am pleased now to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Petri minus the 45 seconds I allotted to the other side.

Mr. MICA. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Petri. Unfortunately, I have to rise, also, in opposition to the manager's amendment. I did cite that the poison pill that was added after introduction of the bill was, of course, the reach-back for Big Labor, which has a $1.9 billion price tag over 5 years. We've had problems with the FedEx provision, which unfairly targets that company. I agreed to raise some fees, but then in the main bill we would divert some funds to bicycle storage. We open up multi-billion dollar funding for purposes like that that are hard to explain to people who want airports expanded and improvements and get something else. We have some 40-now studies as a result of the manager's amendment, I think we're up to at least 40, and $25 million costs, not to mention additional earmarks for union. The OSHA provision for regulation on airplanes added in this, I think it's important that we have safe cabins for passengers, but again, we can have a nightmare in imposing OSHA regulations where they're very difficult to enforce and create, again, a nightmare not only for enforcement, but for those who work on the aircraft and for those who are involved in commercial aviation. Firefighting standards are important, but to impose them, and we tried to get some more reasonable standards, but to impose them arbitrarily at huge expense for small and medium airports that don't have the traffic that warrant some of these mandates from the Federal level, diversion of additional funds. We want our foreign repair stations to have the best certified mechanics; but when you put a provision in, that is contrary to international treaties and agreements. So the list goes on and on. I guess ranking member, Mr. Petri, said the bug control notification is sort of the icing on the cake of why we can't support the manager's amendment. Just some well- intended provisions, but misguided. We certainly will work with the other side. We tried up until the introduction, and we will continue honest efforts to take their good intentions and put it into good legislation rather than a maze of costs, mandates, and burdens that don't get us where we need to be.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's concern. Mr. Garrett has been a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents and he faces a difficult time, as does Mr. Shays from Connecticut. I have been in both of their districts and talked to the constituents, and as FAA moves forward, he has my commitment, during this colloquy and after this colloquy, to work with him to try to encourage FAA to see what we can do to minimize the impact on his constituents.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be here this morning to bring to the floor the FAA reauthorization legislation that is before us. As Members know, and those who follow this subject, our authorization runs out, I believe, the end of next week. That is our Federal policy and projects' financing ability to run our Nation's air traffic system. We had a responsibility to move forward legislation to renew that Federal law, and that's why we are here today. I think that is an important responsibility. I have tried to work with Mr. Oberstar, who now chairs the full committee. He chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, ironically, when I was a freshman in Congress. And as he mentioned, I had the opportunity to chair that subcommittee for the past 6 years and developed a great working relationship with him. I am pleased to work with my ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), who has done yeoman's work to try to bring this legislation forward in a responsible manner, working with the now- chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), who likewise has put his full efforts towards this important reauthorization. We have been fortunate, too, to have great staff on both sides of the aisle working together to meet that responsibility. I am pleased that we could bring the bill forward. However, I have to say, in all honesty, I have some mixed emotions. I must also state that when we come to final passage, and I have told Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Costello and others, that I will cast a vote not in support of this FAA reauthorization, and really for two reasons. First of all, when we introduced the bill, there were several objectionable provisions that had been proposed that I opposed, and I do respect the gentlemen from Minnesota and also Illinois, in working cooperatively to introduce the bill without those objectionable provisions. However, right after we introduced it and we marked up the bill, we started sort of piling on, and there are two provisions which I cannot support, two major provisions, and I made them aware of my opposition. The first one involves an unprecedented reach-back, and it is for the air traffic controllers. Let me say there are men and women, some 15,000 of them, who do an incredible job serving our air traffic control system. And back in the 1990s, I believe that they were underpaid, undercompensated for their responsibilities. But through a contract that was negotiated then under the Clinton administration, they did receive for the next 7 years an average increase of about 10 percent a year. In fact, it totals 75 percent over those 7 years. Now, I would love to have it 10 percent guaranteed increase. I think people who work here in the Congress would like to have a 10 percent pay increase every year; 1.2 million Federal employees, maybe another 20,000 that work at FAA would all like to have this deal, and that deal wasn't to be. This past Congress had the difficult task of receiving the contract that was being negotiated and the final offer that was made by FAA because the contract reached an impasse. And in an unprecedented fashion also, the terms of that contract offer was brought to Congress, and the air traffic controllers lost in that vote here on the floor. Now, I sympathize with Mr. Oberstar and also with Mr. Costello. The appropriators turned down the air traffic controllers in the House. We had several CRs where they attempted to reopen this contract; it was turned down. It was turned down by the appropriators in the Senate. It was turned down in the bill that is now before the other body. Each time that they have gone to the Democrat side, which now controls this body, they have been turned down. Now, they did manage to put this provision to which I object in the bill, and it is unfortunate. It has a huge financial impact. It is estimated to be $1.9 billion, if this is allowed to go forward. And the money is one thing, but reaching back in an unfair manner to other Federal employees. We have some 20,000 professionals, engineers, people with Ph.D.s, a whole host of staff in FAA that aren't going to be treated in an equitable manner. And then the bad precedent it sets for Congress. Folks, any time you get into a labor dispute, just bring it to Congress and we will up your salary when we are pressured. That can't be the way we operate. I have agreed to change the mechanism. Nobody in Congress likes to be the negotiator of salaries or contracts, and we shouldn't be, and I am committed to that. I will also say that since we took up this bill and knowing that this is a pending controversial matter, I have worked day and night to try to get the administration and NATCA union representatives together to resolve those differences. I appreciate the work of all of those involved. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has also joined the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and myself and the Democrat members in that effort. Unfortunately, it's jammed into this bill and that's not fair. There are other provisions that have been put in here for big labor. Now, I know labor won a big vote with the election and is attempting to increase its membership. I respect that, but I think that the grab they have attempted here goes beyond what I feel is reasonable, not only in expanding organizational opportunities that I think go beyond again a reasonable level but some of the other provisions in here that will add cost, that will add regulations, that will add complications to operating our system and not give us a fair return. Not only do we have a responsibility to bring forth this legislation that runs this system but we have an obligation and responsibility to taxpayers and others, the travelers who finance the system, that their funds be spent wisely. I do also have some reservations about provisions that will be added in the manager's amendment. Again, it's not always how much money you spend, but how you spend that money, and we have a responsibility to spend that wisely and very efficiently for hardworking Americans who are paying in to also help finance this system. And then, of course, the final point is the President has issued a veto statement, and he will veto this based on spending, based on the overreach by labor for their contract and other terms that have been put into this legislation. Even though I have opposition, I have pledged to work to move the process forward and continue to renew that pledge at this time as we move forward with the bill. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.