John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to reiterate for the Record that the issue that former Speaker Hastert has brought before the floor, it is my understanding that we did not intend to restrict the scope of the project to only funding for interchange improvements, and the intent of the language was to also fund the other improvements on Route 34, and we will work with the gentleman from Illinois to make certain that point is clarified. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I was hoping the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) would make it to the floor. We took this bill out of the order we anticipated it coming up in, and the gentleman from Arkansas would have been recognized. Again, I thank Mr. Oberstar working with our side of the aisle; Mr. Duncan, my ranking member; the lead Republican on the Highway Subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio; and all of the staff on both sides. They worked real hard on this and over some weekends. We had originally planned to tack this onto the WRDA bill, but that was not meant to be. Actually, that might work out quite well because this might become law before WRDA, given the comments I have gotten from the White House on the WRDA legislation. But I thank all those involved in making certain that the laws that we pass have the intent and the content and the necessary corrections. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Duncan, Mr. DeFazio, who is the chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, everyone, including staff, for their work on this important technical corrections bill. I am pleased to rise tonight and voice my support for H.R. 3248 and encourage my colleagues to do the same. This, in fact, is the fourth time we have brought this bill to the floor in the past 18 months. It is imperative that we pass this measure and for the Senate to follow our lead and pass it as well. I think we have a pretty good agreement with the Senate to do just that. Once the President signs this legislation, SAFETEA-LU, which is the major transportation and highway transit funding bill that we passed less than 2 years ago, all the provisions of that will finally be able to accomplish what Congress set out to do. There are many minor errors, and that was a pretty massive bill, and there are some minor changes in policy, tweaks in policy and in Member projects in the SAFETEA-LU bill that we passed that need this technical correction. We have heard from the Department of Transportation and also several State DOTs regarding fixes to different programs and also high-priority projects. I believe this bill tonight addresses most of the issues that have been brought to the attention of our committee. This bill also makes critical corrections to the Federal Highway Research Program to ensure that the department can continue essential research programs, including the Future Strategic Highway Research Program and the University Transportation Center Research Program. The bill also extends the deadline for the National Surface Transportation and Policy and Review Study Commission and corrects several drafting errors regarding the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Deployment Program. Extending the deadline on the National Transportation Surface Policy and Review Study Commission is very important, particularly as we take on in 2009 the important responsibility of putting in place another bill that will replace SAFETEA-LU to set our policy and projects and transportation priorities for the future. So, it is important to note that this bill does not make any substantial policy changes to the SAFETEA-LU bill, but, again, it deals with technical corrections. Again, this bill corrects provisions that were not workable by the States or by the Department of Transportation. They have relayed their concerns and we have addressed them in this bill. It also is important to note that the Congressional Budget Office has scored this bill and estimates that, over the 2007-2012 period, this bill will reduce contract authority by $1 million and will increase receipts by less than $500,000. There is one purely technical correction that is not included in this package. SAFETEA-LU inadvertently changes certain regulations for trucks with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds. When Congress passed SAFETEA-LU, this change was not a policy change that Congress knew about or intended to make. If Congress wanted to make this change, we would have debated and discussed it. Rather, this was something we were not aware of, and this change has had, in effect, very serious unintended consequences, especially for our small businesses. I had hoped to fix this problem with a technical fix. However, some groups who have benefited from this error have, unfortunately, prevented us from doing so tonight and in this legislation. It is unfortunate a policy change that no Member anticipated and voted on will not be corrected in this legislation tonight. Despite this particular shortcoming and oversight, again, I am pleased to have worked with Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Duncan in revitalizing this very necessary technical corrections bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill tonight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to one of the most distinguished Members of the House, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield at this time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). And, actually, he is our ranking member of the Highway Subcommittee and has done an incredible job on this and also leading the Highway Subcommittee and former chairman of Water Resources and former chairman of Aviation, and he should have handled this bill, but I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to Mr. Duncan.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I do have one additional speaker, Mr. McHenry, from Spruce Pine and Hickory and other wonderful locations in the great State of North Carolina; and I yield him 3 minutes.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time; and I'll be pleased, if the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) needs additional time, to yield to him in light of the tragedy that has struck his State. Mr. Speaker, again, my heartfelt sympathies are expressed to any of the Members from Minnesota as they deal with this very difficult tragedy and also to the families who've lost loved ones in the collapse of the span of Interstate 35 West, which I understand connects Minneapolis and St. Paul. The information I have is that some of the sections were under construction, and the span was closed last night for construction and reopened this morning and scheduled to be closed again tonight. But, unfortunately, we have seen from news accounts a very significant disaster and loss of life in the failure of that infrastructure. I, too, would pledge my support in working with Chairman Oberstar, with the Minnesota delegation and working with this administration and the Congress to bring whatever resources to reopen that span and try to repair that infrastructure. While we can replace the infrastructure, we can't replace the lives; and, again, our sympathy goes to those who mourn their loved ones tonight. As we conclude debate on this water resources infrastructure bill, once again we're reminded of the importance of infrastructure, whether it's bridges, dams, the highways that are along our beaches, the natural reserves we have in this country that depend on Congress to protect them and protect that water resource infrastructure. I yielded earlier to our ranking member and thank him again, Mr. Baker; and I said the Good Lord sent us Mr. Baker to lead the Republican side of the Water Resources Committee. And again, we have the example of the failure of water resource infrastructure, the levees and some of the infrastructure in New Orleans and Louisiana. No one is more knowledgeable, has a better firsthand experience than Mr. Baker. And this bill also contains a considerable amount of authorization for projects in Louisiana and New Orleans. Finally, I want to thank, again, Ms. Johnson. Next week, I'll get to travel to her district. Under her leadership they bring together all the transportation leaders in the State of Texas for probably one of the country's largest, it's grown to the country's largest infrastructure conferences, and they've asked me to come down and speak and be with them as they plan Texas' policy and transportation projects for the future. I look forward to that opportunity of being with her, and I thank her again for her distinguished leadership and working in a bipartisan fashion to craft this long-overdue legislation. So again, I thank all of those. I have John Anderson, Mr. Speaker, with me, who represents all of the staff on the Republican side; and I thank the staff on the majority side for their hard work in trying to make this bill a reality. And, again, I thought of one of the most important projects, as the gentleman from Florida, other gentleman from Florida pointed out tonight, that restoration, the first work on the Everglades being in this bill, important not only to Florida and our districts in Florida but also to the Nation because of the environmental treasure that we're trying to preserve. We do make positive steps towards its restoration and preservation for future generations. So it's a good bill. I know the President's probably going to veto it. It'll be back here. We're going to, unfortunately, have to override that veto to make this a reality. But, as I said earlier, the President has to do what he has to do, Congress has to do what the Congress has to do, and we will work together again to make certain that the infrastructure of this country and water resources are preserved for the future. For the first time since 2000, the Congress is on the verge of passing a major bill authorizing projects, studies, policies, and programs related to the Army Corps of Engineers. There has been a WRDA introduced in every Congress since 2000, however, controversy always seemed to arise that dashed our hopes for a new authorization bill. Over the years we have worked to bridge the gaps created by those controversies and have arrived at the point where we now have a product that the Congress can approve and send to the President. This bill has been under development for many years. It is the result of much debate and much compromise. This is not the bill that any of us in the room would have written, if we were writing a bill by ourselves. However, it is a bill that all of us can support because it addresses important needs of our Nation. This is a good bill that represents investments in America. These investments will improve trade, protect our homes and businesses from flood damages, and enhance our quality of life by restoring aquatic ecosystems. This legislation ensures our ports and waterways remain viable in the international marketplace by authorizing critical navigation deepening projects. Without these projects shippers will go to other foreign ports like those in Canada and Central America. For some goods, as much as 50% of the ultimate price paid by the consumer is attributable to transportation costs. Keeping these costs low not only benefits consumers here in the United States, it also makes products produced in the United States more competitive on the world market. Congestion at an outdated lock on a waterway can result in increased costs that rob the farmer of his or her profit. Delay and its associated costs also can rob a farmer of his or her market. This is not a speculative concern. Recently, improved transportation systems in South America have allowed farmers there to keep their costs low enough to underbid United States grain farmers for customers located in the United States! America's farmers, like the rest of the United States economy, depend on modern and efficient waterways as an integral part of the intermodal transportation system. Trade builds wealth. But to realize the economic benefits of trade, we must have a modern transportation system. To maintain our place in the global economy, the United States must have modern ports and waterways that can bring the world's goods to our door and make America's products competitive on the world market. Our ports and waterways need to be improved to handle the additional traffic and larger class of ships that we know are coming. This Conference Report addresses these needs in several ways including authorizing improvements to waterways in my home State of Florida, as well as in Texas, Louisiana, and Virginia. In addition, it authorizes 7 new locks and other navigation improvements on the upper Mississippi River. The WRDA Conference Report authorizes critical projects to provide flood protection to millions of Americans. Flood damage reduction projects save Federal dollars by reducing the probability that disaster relief will have to be used in the future. This bill includes a multitude of projects that protect our cities from floods and coastal storms. As our Nation has become more environmentally conscious, and sought ways to improve aquatic ecosystems, the Corps of Engineers has become a leader in planning and carrying our environmental restoration projects. This Conference Report is by far the ``greenest'', most environmentally-friendly Water Resources Development Act ever. The most frequent purpose of new Corps of Engineers project authorizations in this bill is environmental restoration. This Conference Report contains critical provisions to restore the Everglades. Everglades restoration has been talked about for years, but with the projects authorized in this bill, actual work and construction of projects can begin. Not only is the Everglades vital to the economy, environment and people of Florida, it is a national treasure that must be cared for and protected for future generations of Americans. These projects have been brought forward by the Corps in partnership with the State of Florida. The State of Florida has stepped up with their share of funds for these projects. Now that we have these first authorizations, Congress should be supportive of funding this important effort to save a national treasure. These are just the first of what will be many projects over the next several decades to clean up, store, and redirect water for the Everglades. This bill does not provide guaranteed funding--money will have to be appropriated to meet these authorization levels, but it represents a critical commitment by the Congress to restore an ecological jewel of the United States. This legislation will help ensure a revitalized Everglades for generations to come. Also addressed in this bill are policy issues that improve how the Corps of Engineers does projects. We have instituted an Independent Peer Review into the Corps' planning process to enhance the agency's credibility. We are improving project monitoring to determine if the projects are performing as designed. I know that some are not happy with the size of this bill; however, we must remember that the Conference Report represents the pent-up demand of 3 WRDA bills. This legislation is overdue by 5 years. And if we wait any longer it will just be a bigger bill, because the Nation's needs are not going away by themselves. We must address them like we are doing here today. I want to thank Don Young, the former chairman of this Committee, who worked for many years to resolve the difficult issues surrounding this bill; and also Jimmy Duncan who chaired our Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee for 6 years and worked closely with the Ranking Members Jerry Costello and Peter DeFazio to create many of the compromises that made this Conference Report possible. I certainly want to thank you, Chairman Oberstar, for your leadership over the years both as Ranking Member and now as Chairman of the Full Committee. It has been very rewarding to work with you on this bill and it shows what we can accomplish when we work together in a bipartisan way to address the Nation's needs. Under the leadership of Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, the Senate passed a bill that included many of the same projects addressed in the House bill. I think it is appropriate that the package before us today represents a compromise of the House and Senate bills into a good product that both chambers can proudly support. Lastly, I want to thank the staff of the Full Committee, Jim Coon, Amy Steinmann, Charlie Ziegler, and Jason Rosa. I also want to thank the staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, John Anderson, Geoff Bowman, and William Collum for their dedication in finishing the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. And on Mr. Oberstar's staff, I want to thank David Heymsfeld and Ward McCarragher of the Full Committee, and especially the Subcommittee staff of Ryan Seiger, Ted Illston, Beth Goldstein, and Mike Brain. I urge all Members to support the Conference Report. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to one of the very distinguished members of the Missouri delegation, Mr. Hulshof. (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, first of all, I can't begin this debate on this water resources legislation without congratulating Mr. Oberstar. As you heard Mr. Oberstar say that some 44 years ago he was a staffer for Chairman Blatnik, I think his name was, at that time and tonight he chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I'm pleased to be the Republican ranking member to have worked with him to bring forth a bill that is very important, not only to Mr. Oberstar, and his efforts and others in trying to bring a bill forward. You know, we have not passed a water resources infrastructure bill since the year 2000. Normally, we pass it every 2 years in a cycle legislation that sets forth the projects and the policy and the priorities for building the Nation's infrastructure, and we haven't done that. Now, one of the problems that we've had is that we've had a bad name given to earmarks, and this bill contains some 950 projects, almost all of them earmarks. There are a very significant number of earmarks in this bill. From the time I assumed responsibility for the T&I Committee on the Republican side and in my discussions with Mr. Oberstar, I said we've got to make certain this process is open, this process is transparent and that we restore faith in this process. The choice is that we could pass a bill tonight for $20 billion and authorizing projects and not name those projects but let some bureaucrats down the street that are unelected make the decisions, but that's not way this process works. The people sent us here, they send us here to renew the contract every 2 years to decide what the priorities are for our districts, and that's what this legislation is about. There are 950 projects in this legislation, again a very high number, and the bill is a very high number, probably $20 billion when you total up all those projects in authorization. Now, all of them won't get funded, but we have a responsibility to set the priorities, and the people are setting the priorities through their elected representative, not some appointed bureaucrat. I tried to make this a transparent process from the beginning. These are all of the Republican Water Resource Development Act of 2007 requests. These have been on file. These have been open to the public. The press has been in. They have been carefully vetted. Mr. Oberstar and I attempted to vet every single project on the House side, and the staff and others have been working to make certain that we vetted the Senate and all the projects in this bill. And I think we've done about as good a job and opened the process up to sunshine, to again a fair and open honest process and hopefully restored some of the faith in this process. Now, I did receive today a communication notifying me that the White House will probably veto this legislation. That's unfortunate, and I've talked to the White House. We've tried to keep the dollars number down, but I tell the White House and anyone else, and I will support Mr. Oberstar and others if we have to override that veto. We need to do that. Our job is to make certain that we build the infrastructure of this country and we do it in a responsible manner. We haven't had a bill since 2000. All you have to do is do the math. The math is simple. The bills in the past have been about $6 billion, 6X3 is 18, and you add a few billion dollars more for inflation, and this is the number we're at and the number of projects we're at. I've told this to the President's advisers, and I regret that we're in this situation, but we'll have to do what we have to do. The President's going to have to do what he has to do. But let me tell you now, and Katrina should be a lesson to us all, you either pay now or you will pay later. These are projects that will determine whether dams break, whether levees are secure, whether water resources for this Nation are available, whether we do important environmental restoration that's been left behind. Again, I repeat that this is authorization, not funding. But we have a responsibility to pick and set those priorities as the people's elected representatives. Let me tell you also again critical needs in this bill. I have had Members literally come to me with tears in their eyes and say that, in fact, a project is so important that people's homes, lives and properties may be destroyed if we don't move forward with authorizing their projects. In my own State of Florida, I am pleased tonight, and there are ironies tonight, I remember working with Senator Dole when we tried to do the Everglades restoration. That was talked about for years, even when I was in the legislature back in Florida in the 1970s. Tonight, in this bill is the authorization for the first construction money to restore Florida's Everglades, a national environmental treasure that, unfortunately, man and sometimes the Corps of Engineers in some unwise policies have nearly ruined. But we have a chance now to restore that through this legislation. In 2000, we authorized study money. This is the actual work money, the first work money for that. In my own community, and I close on this, I have A1A, scenic and national highway designation A1A, through Flagler County, which is literally falling into the ocean. The beach has eroded. We have no more beach there. We need to restore that. Those are the kinds of projects that are in this bill, even for me as a ranking member. I strongly support this measure. I think it's responsible. I don't want to get into a contest with the White House, but, again, I thank the staff; Mr. Baker, I will yield to in a few minutes; Ms. Johnson; Mr. Duncan, the former chairman of the water resources; and all others who have worked on this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to an outstanding member of the T&I Committee on the Republican side of the aisle, the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Poe) for 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to introduce the gentleman from Louisiana. Sometimes in this business you have the opportunity to decide who is going to work with you on different projects. I had that opportunity in January, and I chose Richard Baker. If you don't know Richard Baker, let me tell you, the good Lord sent Richard Baker to us at the right time, because there is probably nobody in the Congress that could have been a better steward or done a better job in handling the Water Resources Committee responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), just an absolutely outstanding representative, who has done a good job on this great bill that is so important to Louisiana.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on rollcall 757. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the measure.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. My colleagues, I have spent some time on transportation security as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee for some 6 years, helping to craft some of the TSA legislation, working actually with the 9/11 Commission. First of all, if anyone thinks that this bill is going to make us safer by any of the major provisions in the bill, they are wrong. They are dead wrong. What is unfortunate is they are adopting today in this so-called 9/11 Commission Report many things that will actually take our limited resources and put us greater at risk by diverting those resources to programs that make no sense. And I will try to show you in a few minutes. First of all, let's look at the major provisions of this bill. First, cargo security, maritime cargo security. Here is a picture of one of the test cargo security maritime screening operations. I brought a little model, I made my own little model to show you how this works. There is the truck going through there. It goes through. You can either have a fixed location for this screening equipment or a portable one; they can move it around. Then the truck goes through the screening like that. And then when it goes through, we have completed that. Then we take the cargo. Now, if you have been to the ports, and I have been to the foreign ports that they are requiring this procedure for, this cargo goes and it sits on the dock somewhere. It may be days, weeks before it is ever loaded. What a complete farce for cargo containers to go through this exercise. Then if you have been to the ports, let's try Marseilles, I have been to Marseilles, let's try Livorno. Let's try others. What about this guy who is a dock worker? That dock worker can take this cargo and penetrate it. We have talked to the dock workers and they say that what you are instituting is an absolute joke. And it is not a recommendation. I defy anyone to get a copy of this and look at it. Page 393 is what they recommend. They said: TSA should expedite the installation of an advanced in-line baggage screening system. You are going to hear somebody tell you that we have done that. Folks, this is how many airports we have done out of 440 airports: five of our major airports in the United States. A total of 18, but five of our major airports; 29 airports handle 75 percent of the air passengers. And that is what they recommended. It is right here. It says: TSA also needs to intensify its efforts to identify, track, and appropriately screen dangerous cargo in both the aviation and maritime sectors. I am telling you, this is an expensive exercise in diverting limited resources and will put us even greater at risk. The terrorists have to be laughing at us today. Even worse are some of the other provisions. This lifts the 45,000 caps on screeners. We are paid $5.4 billion for 45,000 screeners. In fact, we should be spending that $5.4 billion on technology that does, I can't reveal the classified results, but it does an incredible job. Instead, we have an army of 16,800 screeners who are hand-checking checked baggage at the airport. A complete farce. And that is a provision. Here is another provision that is a disaster: require the disclosure in the Intelligence budget, that is almost criminal, in 2007 and 2008 but not I guess not in 2009, to tell the other side exactly what we are doing. So this does a lot of damage. And then, finally, it creates a whole new bureaucracy. I didn't think the conference committee, and I wouldn't sign the report, could create a bigger bureaucracy. But it did just that. If you love bureaucracy, you will love this bill. Not only what I just described, but we have had a Department of Transportation that administers transit grants, has done so, has the bureaucracy in place, and can expedite the quick distribution. Instead, we have 185,000 people in the Department of Homeland Security who haven't done this before now are going to set up another bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. This is a great bill; it is a nice bumper sticker thing to go back and say we did something about homeland security. But, folks, we are doing damage.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. It is, again, rare that we have the chairmen on both sides of the aisle, the appropriation and authorizing committee, all uniformly in opposition to an amendment. But let me tell you, if you want to close down air traffic in the United States indefinitely in the Northeast, adopt this amendment. Now, this isn't something that we just cooked up, that we're going to redesign the air space in the Northeast corridor. We started on this in 1998. We haven't redesigned the air corridor in the northeast United States since 1988. Imagine not expanding the roads or the transportation system in the Northeast since 1998 and the congestion you would have, and that's exactly what we've got. Now, I've been to the districts. I've been to Mr. Garrett's district, Mr. Fossella's district. I've been to Mr. Shays' district. And I continue to work with Members, when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, and now as ranking member, and we will work with them, but we have got to redesign the air space. Imagine having no expansion highways. Now, planes are no different than highways; they run in corridors. But we haven't changed it in the Northeast corridor since 1988. We have been working on this redesign since 1998, some 10 years. We have got to make these changes and move forward with them. And we need to listen to the people. We need to make certain that we don't harm their environment, their noise levels, and take into consideration as many of the points that have been raised. But I urge you to defeat this amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I'm pleased to join Mr. Oberstar who chairs our committee, and as the ranking member, and you'll hear from our ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, also opposed to this amendment and, I believe, Mr. Costello, who's the Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, which I previously chaired, is opposed to this amendment. So rarely have we had such bipartisan support in opposing an amendment. As Mr. Oberstar said, too, maybe this may be well-intended to try to deal with some problems we've had in the past, but let me tell you, this amendment can have some very severe consequences. We're talking about closing down the modernization of our air traffic control system. Here's the headline of today's Washington Times: ``FAA Target Airline Delays.'' I can't come to the floor and not be besieged by Members who haven't been delayed by flights. If you really want to close down our Nation's aviation system, pass this amendment. We have successfully done these consolidations in the past. We'll do them and modernize and get the latest equipment. However, a moratorium on consolidations through January of 2009 will cause FAA to lose $110 million of expiring funds this year that are targeted toward modernizing these facilities, and nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in construction costs will be placed on hold for projects currently in process across the country. This would be a disaster. Many of the airports affected are planning to make improvements, and all of this attempt to get our aviation industry moving and air traffic moving and modernization of the system will come to a grinding halt. May be well-intended, may try to solve a problem that the gentleman from Florida has experienced, but this is not the solution. I urge opposition.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman and Members of the House, I offer an amendment tonight to try to alleviate some of the pain that I believe will be inflicted on State departments of transportation across the United States, and that pain will be inflicted by a $3 billion rescission in highway contract authority that is included in this bill tonight. My preference would be to strike this rescission from the bill altogether. I did not have an opportunity to do that the way the rules were crafted. A $3 billion rescission of highway contract authority will have an adverse effect on State highway work across the country and plans all across the country for construction projects. However, I do think we do have the votes to eliminate the rescission provision from this bill in its entirety. If this bill were being considered pursuant to the rules of the House, we would not have to vote on striking this rescission. This rescission is authorizing in nature and actually under normal circumstances would have been subject to a point of order which I would have offered pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXI, authorizing on an appropriations measure. However, the rule that was adopted earlier this evening governing this debate waived this point of order; therefore, I am forced tonight to offer this amendment. This amendment is designed to make it easier for our State departments of transportation to handle rescissions of this size and magnitude. This amendment strikes language in the bill that requires the State departments of transportation to apply part of their rescission proportionately across all highway programs. I know you will hear some others say that this is going to not assist CMAQ and some of the air quality programs and all that. But when you have a rescission of this magnitude in this bill of $3 billion in size, this is going to dramatically affect some of the work projects in many of the districts of many of the Members who are listening tonight. By striking this provision in the bill, this amendment will restore the flexibility of the State departments of transportation they had in applying rescissions contained in previous appropriations measures. The current language in the bill will force all State departments of transportation to apply the rescission in the same way. Each State would have to rescind funding from its highway programs in the same ratio that it receives from the Federal Highway Administration. Unfortunately, this cookie-cutter approach does not work for every State. Some States have very little balances in certain highway programs from which they will be required to apply this mandated rescission. This will have, unfortunately, a really severe impact on a State's highway work plan, many of them, as I said, in progress. Projects in every one of our districts will be impacted. I have a letter here from the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials supporting my amendment. Attached to this letter is a table showing how this rescission will impact every State. I include these documents for the Record. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, July 23, 2007. Hon. John Mica, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Mica: I am writing on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which represents the departments of transportation in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. As we indicated to the Committee last month, we are alarmed that the Fiscal Year 2008 spending bill contains a provision that would rescind $3 billion in apportioned contract authority from the unobligated balances of total apportionments. Since 2002, Congress has rescinded a total of $9.822 billion in state apportioned highway contract authority. This most recent proposal would bring the total to almost $13 billion. These recurring rescissions of already apportioned contract authority are likely to have a severe and immediate effect on some States. How the States will be affected will vary to some degree because the amount of unused contract authority varies widely from State to State and among categories within each State. However, after almost $13 billion in rescissions, all States will be affected. A provision in the bill that would require the States to distribute the rescission proportionately among all program categories would further interfere with States' ability to manage their highway programs, set priorities and craft long- term financial strategies. Therefore we urge you to adopt an amendment which we believe will be offered by Rep. John Mica to strike this provision. In the future we would like to work with Congress to identify alternatives which would not be detrimental to continuing the long-term financial stability of the federal- aid highway program. Sincerely yours, John Horsley, Executive Director.

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

Mr. MICA. Would the gentleman yield briefly?

Mr. MICA. I think the gentleman raised some good points on the other side. We had a vote on this, and it is a closely divided question. But I think all Members will hear from their State department of transportation. We have granted flexibility in the past. I am a great supporter of enhancements. I think we need things that some people may consider not asphalt and concrete, but things that enhance the beauty of our highways and transportation system in this country. But when you take a rescission of $3 billion, and States have obligations, and we have done this in the past to them, we have rescinded money in the past to them, I think we need to give them as much flexibility as possible to make the decisions, to make those cuts and to adjust their budgets. They get obligated for huge amounts of money and significant projects that are underway. And Members throughout this body will hear from their State department of transportation that they have projects underway that will have to be put on hold, that will be delayed, and that will cause a great disruption in their transportation planning and construction projects. So that's the reason that I think we should give them the same flexibility that they have had in the past. I am not asking for any more or any less.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I think in 45 seconds let me cite for the record, then, verbally here the provisions authorizing in nature and rescissions in this bill: In addition to the $3 billion in Federal Highway Contract Authority, a rescission of $172 million in Highway Research Funding; a rescission of $50 million in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; a rescission of $20 million from the Highway National Traffic Safety Administration; a rescission of $30 million from the Federal Transit Administration; a rescission of more than $200 million from the Federal Aviation Administration; and, finally, there is authorizing for Amtrak that was poorly crafted in this bill that deals with the problem with MARC in Maryland. In this poorly crafted authorizing on an appropriations legislative measure, they poorly drafted a provision that deals with the problem with MARC in Maryland, their transit system; and the bill requires that all leases and contracts entered into by Amtrak be governed by the laws of the District of Columbia, drafted in error, but authorizing that step in this important bill. So these are the points that I would raise and need to be addressed.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. And I appreciate the work that the Rules Committee has done on this. I also appreciate the work of the Transportation, HUD, and related agencies appropriations subcommittee, and Mr. Olver, the gentleman from Massachusetts, and also the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Knollenberg. And I am not here to criticize their work product. I am here, though, to set a marker, partly a historical marker; and I will speak in opposition to this rule and also the way the rule was crafted. Madam Speaker, while the Committee on Rules calls this resolution an open rule, it is unfortunately extremely restrictive in nature. While the rule will allow for most amendments, unfortunately it weighs most points of order against consideration of the bill. Under clause 2 of rule XXI, the rules of the House allow for a point of order to be raised against any provision that is considered authorizing on an appropriations bill; however, this resolution that we are considering now waives that point of order. Now, again, I come here because, as the ranking member, the Republican leader on the House Transportation Committee, I said we need to set a marker. I was checking with the Parliamentarian, and as far back as we can look, the Founding Fathers and those that preceded us in these Chambers separated the authorizing process, authorizing projects and policy, from the appropriations policy. And here, tonight, we abandon the prerogative of the authorizing committee to cite a point of order that should be raised against a number of provisions in this legislation that in fact authorize on an appropriations matter. What good is the transportation and infrastructure authorizing committee? It is the largest committee in the House of Representatives, and the action we take here tonight makes really chopped liver out of that process. I think that is unfair, and it also sets a bad precedent. There are several provisions of the bill that we will consider tonight that are authorizing, as I said, in nature and that would be subject to a point of order if this is truly an open rule tonight. The most egregious of these provisions is the proposed rescission of $3 billion of unobligated highway contract authority. A rescission of this size will have a very severe impact on the ability of our State departments of transportation to implement their highway programs throughout the Nation. To compound the effect of this rescission, the provision also restricts how a State can apply the rescission. During consideration of H.R. 3074 this evening, I will offer an amendment that will address this issue. My amendment is simple. It will seek to provide the State departments of transportation maximum flexibility in how the rescissions should be administered. It is nice for us to make these rescissions, but we should give the States some prerogative in how they apply those rescissions to their own States and their priority of projects. If the rule was truly an open rule and did not waive points of order, then I would not have to offer this amendment. I could have simply raised a point of order, which I have done in the past. Mr. Young, who was the chairman, would have taken the same measure. He would have been out here if he was in the majority and Chair, Mr. Shuster before him, and the language would have been stricken from the bill. However, this rule waives that point of order, and for this reason I will vote against the rule this evening, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. I would insert in the Record at this point a letter from Chairman Oberstar of the T&I Committee dated July 18, 2007, to Mr. Obey, and it states a whole series of concerns that he raised about, again, authorizing on a legislative appropriations. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Washington, DC, July 18, 2007. Hon. David R. Obey, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Obey: I would like to share my views on several issues related to H.R. __, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (``THUD'') Appropriations Act for fiscal year (FY) 2008, as ordered reported by the Committee on Appropriations last week. Although these issues include provisions that violate Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I have not asked that the Committee on Rules allow me to raise a point of order against these provisions. I would like to work with you to resolve these issues. highways I regret that the bill rescinds $3 billion in unobligated balances of funds that have been apportioned to States under the Federal-aid highway program. However, I understand the funding constraints that led to this decision, and I appreciate that the bill requires the rescission to be applied proportionally to all Federal-aid highway programs, consistent with the approach taken in H.R. 2701, the Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Throughout the bill, there are a number of other rescissions of highway, motor carrier safety, highway safety, and transit funds that raise concerns for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In particular, section 124 rescinds $172,242,964 of unobligated balances of contract authority for research programs conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1195, which provides additional resources to ensure that the FHWA research program receives the funding necessary to continue essential programs. Under SAFETEA-LU, the contract authority for research programs is available for a period of three fiscal years. A portion of this unobligated balance of contract authority is needed to conduct research programs in FY 2008. H.R. __, the THUD Appropriations Act, rescinds some of these necessary research funds. Aviation The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recently ordered H.R 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, to be reported. Section 404(b) of H.R. 2881 amends section 41742(b) of title 49, United States Code, to require overflight fee collections in excess of $50 million to be distributed as follows: one-half to the Small Community Air Service Development (``SCASD'') program, and one-half to the Essential Air Service (``EAS'') program, or if not needed for EAS, then for rural air safety improvements. In addition, section 121 of H.R. 2881 requires the Federal Aviation Administration to increase the overflight fee rates beginning on October 1, 2008. This provision will result in a significant increase in overflight fee collections in the future. These provisions of H.R. 2881 could be undermined by the proviso on page 15, lines 1 through 5, of the Committee Print of the FY 2008 THUD appropriations bill. This proviso waives section 41742(b) of title 49, United States Code, and instead requires overflight fee collections in excess of $50 million to be carried over to FY 2009 and used to help satisfy the $50 million funding requirement for EAS in FY 2009. With this language, and steadily increasing overflight fee collections, a balance of unexpended overflight fees would quickly build up over time, a situation I would strongly oppose. As the aviation reauthorization and FY 2008 appropriations processes continue to move forward, care must be taken to ensure that contradictions such as this do not remain in the final legislation. Similarly, Title VII of H.R 2881 extends the aviation war risk insurance program through 2017, followed by a transition to an airline industry-sponsored risk sharing arrangement after 2017. These provisions could be undermined by section 115 of the FY 2008 THUD appropriations bill, which extends the program for a much shorter period of time. This is another case in which the aviation reauthorization and FY 2008 appropriations bills must be carefully coordinated. Aside from these issues related to the FAA reauthorization bill, there are several other aviation-related provisions in the FY 2008 THUD appropriations bill that are of concern to me. The paragraph beginning on page 5, line 23, of the Committee Print appropriates $60 million for the EAS program. These funds are in addition to the EAS funding from overflight fees. While I support funding for this program, this is an unauthorized appropriation from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The EAS program does not exist for the benefit of aviation system users. Rather, it exists to help small communities maintain their link to the national aviation system and, therefore the economic life of this nation. As such, there is no compelling policy reason to fund the EAS program from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, rather than the General Fund. Furthermore, the uncommitted cash balance in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund has dropped significantly over the past several years. The remaining balance in the Trust Fund must be preserved for expenditure on programs that are authorized to be funded from the Trust Fund. Therefore, I request that you consider deriving this appropriation from the General Fund, rather than the Trust Fund. Regarding the Airport Improvement Program (``AIP''), I have three areas of concern. First, the proviso on page 13, lines 2 through 10, of the Committee Print earmarks AIP funds for several activities that, under H.R. 2881, are not authorized to be funded from AIP and would be a violation of the aviation capital funding guarantee. I am particularly concerned about the earmarking of AlP funds for research programs, and the expansion of this practice to include a new program--Airport Technology Research. Second the bill rescinds $185.5 million of AIP contract authority that remains unobligated due to the failure of the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (P.L. 110- 5) to fully fund the AIP program. I will not object to this rescission because I do not want to further constrain the funding that is available for transportation programs in FY 2008. However, this AIP contract authority is within the guaranteed levels and should not be rescinded. Third, the report accompanying the FY 2008 THUD appropriations bill includes a listing of 72 airport projects which the FAA is directed to fund. The law governing the AIP requires the FAA to establish a priority system to decide which projects will receive funding. The FAA's National Priority System, which has been in use for many years, gives highest priority to projects that will bring airports into compliance with safety standards. Second priority is given to projects that are necessary to meet security requirements. Third priority is given to reconstruction or rehabilitation projects that are needed to preserve existing airport infrastructure. Fourth priority is given to projects needed to achieve compliance with current FAA standards. Fifth priority is given to capacity enhancement projects. Aviation projects are not like projects in other modes of transportation. For example, an improvement to a highway project in one city does not necessarily benefit highway users in any other city, but in the national system of integrated airports, an improvement in one airport, particularly a major hub airport, could benefit aviation travelers throughout the system. For this reason, the FAA should have, and does have, discretion to fund improvements to increase capacity, to improve safety, to meet standards, and reduce bottlenecks. To limit the FAA'S discretion in this regard would only worsen the congestion and delays we are already experiencing today. I want to make it clear that the language in a report cannot override a priority system established under the governing law. I would like to quote from the decision of the Comptroller General on a similar situation. The Comptroller General wrote: ``It is our view that when Congress merely appropriates lump sum amounts without statutorily restricting what can be done with those funds, a clear inference arises that it does not intend to impose legally binding restrictions, and indicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should be or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal requirements on Federal agencies.'' Throughout my career, I have steadfastly resisted designating airport improvement projects in authorizing legislation and will continue to resist such designations. I urge you to resist including such earmarks, as well. Railroads The proviso beginning on page 39, line 22, of the Committee Print requires leases and contracts entered into by Amtrak to be governed by the laws of the District of Columbia. I recognize that this is intended to address a specific situation in Maryland, and I agree that there is a compelling reason to address that situation. In fact, a similar provision that is specific to Maryland was included in the rail security bill, and is expected to be included in the 9/ 11 Conference Report. However, this proviso is much broader and would preempt all state and local laws (except the District of Columbia's laws) dealing with contracts and leases with respect to Amtrak. To avoid any unintended consequences that may result from such a broad approach, this issue should be considered under regular order, and addressed in the Amtrak reauthorization bill currently being developed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Finally, I would like to comment on the proviso beginning on page 40, line 8, of the Committee Print which prohibits Amtrak from using Federal funds for supporting any route on which Amtrak offers a discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal, peak fare. Oftentimes passenger travel providers will seek to maximize revenue on certain routes or travel times by offering travel discounts. For example, the airline industry has developed sophisticated pricing practices that maximize revenues by ensuring that seats that would otherwise fly empty (contributing nothing to revenues), are filled at whatever price point the market will support. Restricting Amtrak from employing similar pricing practices seems unfair, and contrary to the notion that Amtrak should operate in a more business-like fashion. Thank you for your consideration of these views. Although there are numerous other legislative provisions that are included in the THUD Appropriations Committee Print, my principal concerns are with the provisions discussed above. I look forward to working with you to resolve the critical issues outlined in this letter. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, M.C., Chairman. May I inquire how much time I have remaining.