John Mica

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, this debate is a perfect example of why we have an energy crisis in the United States, a lot of people talking about energy and not using many facts. I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment here to open up gas exploration and extraction of natural gas wells up to 25 miles, I guess would be the limit he proposes. Let's just go back in history. I was in the Florida legislature on the Select Energy Committee in the State House when we had gasoline shortages and cars lined up. I voted to drill in the Everglades. My opponents remind me about that all the time. Did you know we still drill in the Everglades? We do it safely, and we're taking oil out of the Everglades without any harmful effects on the Everglades or the environment. You hear fear, not facts, being proposed here. Damage to the economy. Well, back in the 1990s I participated in a 100-mile set off, and we set that as the policy. That's back in the 1990s. The technology we have today in extracting natural gas and oil, and this is about natural gas. It's not about oil, but the same holds true. We won't even go into the oil extraction. But we have technology today they didn't even dream about a decade ago. Off the coast of Scandinavia, they're taking out oil and natural gas. They're using technology. There's nothing above the surface of the water. Twenty-five miles, you won't see that. Some of the proposals for wind, I challenge you to go to Scandinavia, to some of the other places where they have these huge windmills and see the visual pollution that is created. So it can be done. We have the technology to extract it. Let me give you the irony of Florida and the history again. So we came back here, and this isn't just a Republican, Democrat issue, people talking about something they know nothing about. We had a Governor Bush, we had a President Bush, and they argued over it and we changed the areas that were eligible for extraction. When you drill for oil, or in this case, gas, it costs you hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to drill. Are you going to drill when you're playing this hokey-pokey, first we put our right foot out then we put our left foot out. It's going to be 100, it's going to be a 120, it's going to be 150 or you can't do it. No. It's absolutely incredible that we have a vast supply of natural gas right off of Florida. We can do it; we have the technology to extract it. We built a billion-dollar pipeline, a billion-dollar pipeline. We can't hook up to it. We have the supply. The trade deficit, nobody's even talked about the trade deficit. Most of the trade deficit is importing oil. Look at the huge part of it. So we're bankrupting the United States, sending our resources overseas. We've got this in our back yard. It's clean. In Florida, during the 1990s, the Clinton policy for the country was to go to natural gas for energy production for our power plants. Twenty-eight of 34 electrical power plants planned from Florida are designed for natural gas. Now we're switching back to coal and oil. What a crazy, mixed-up policy. And here the gentleman from Pennsylvania offers us an opportunity to tap into a clean resource that doesn't emit these gas emissions that are detrimental to the environment and, again, this nonsensical debate that takes place. Stop the politics. We had the gentleman from Florida a few minutes ago. Cuba, 90 miles. Within 45 miles the Chinese will soon be drilling for energy resources. What a goofed-up debate and policy. Shame on us. And the American people are paying. Wait till they get their bills. It's not going to get better, folks. They said, well, we'll just wait for some other technology. We have this here. Solar and wind and all these other things are necessary, and we should use them. I'm a big fan of nuclear, but we have a proposal before us that makes sense. Let's adopt it.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to see we're doing something about this, but the Members should be aware of the procedure in the House of trying to change a light bulb. I tried to change one. It took filling out forms. This is to get an energy efficient one. Then two people appeared several days later, one with a form, one with a light bulb; an incredible waste of time, energy and taxpayer money to put in one fluorescent light bulb. I hope the procedure improves in the House.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, today at Arlington National Cemetery, my constituent and friend Fred Pyle of Ormond Beach, Florida was laid to rest. It was my honor to have had the opportunity to know Fred and his family. His service to our country through our Armed Forces and law enforcement is a shining example of American patriotism. The son of Martin and Mae Emma Pyle, he was born in Somerset, Pennsylvania on April 17, 1920. Fred was one of six sons, five of whom served in the United States military during World War II and were recognized as being the first family of five brothers to serve our Nation's armed services in that conflict. He first entered into the service in 1938 joining the National Guard in his hometown of Somerset. He was later selected to serve as an MP and saw combat with the 726th Police Battalion in World War II during what was known as the ``Red Ball Express,'' when Allied Forces landed at Normandy and began their push towards Germany. His service later took him to Okinawa, Japan where his responsibilities included the overseeing of Japanese Prisoners of War. In addition to his service in World War II, Fred served in the Korean War and at the prestigious Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland where he served as Chief Master of Arms. Fred achieved the rank of Staff Sergeant and was a recipient of several prestigious awards including the Victory Medal of World War II, American Theatre Ribbon, American Defense Ribbon and the Good Conduct Medal. He was also recalled during the Korean conflict where he honorably served as an instructor in a NCO academy and earned himself the Occupational Medal (Germany). He left the Army in 1952 with an honorable discharge. After his service, Fred graduated from the Institute of Applied Science in Chicago and became a police officer with the Somerset Police Department where he worked for more than 10 years. With the passing of Fred Pyle, America has lost an outstanding citizen and a shining example of a family's commitment and 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 of 67 years, Stella, his son Bruce, his three grandchildren and one great-grandson, in addition to his loving family, we offer our deepest sympathy. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize Fred Pyle's contributions and to ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives of the 110th Congress to join me in remembering a great American hero.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker. I rise today to pay tribute to William Clifton ``Bill'' France, who passed away Monday, June 4, 2007, at his home in Daytona Beach, Florida. It was my honor to have known and worked with Bill France over the past years. Known by friends as ``Bill Jr.,'' he was a legend in American motorsports. The son of NASCAR's founder, he was born in Washington, DC on April 4th, 1933. His family moved to Daytona Beach in 1934 where his father, William France, Sr., began establishing the world's most famous racing circuit and a national sports phenomenon. Bill Jr. graduated from Seabreeze High School in Daytona Beach in 1951 where he played on the basketball team. He attended the University of Florida and served in the United States Navy from 1953 to 1955. After his service in the Navy, Bill Jr. found the love of his life, Ms. Betty Jane Zachary, who became the mother of his two children, Brian France and Lesa Kennedy. Both of his children and his wife were instrumental in the success of what is now ``the most watched American sport,'' NASCAR. Bill Jr. did not begin his journey as CEO. He started working his way up the ranks holding positions as a flagman, concierge, race scorer and other jobs. In 1959, he even drove a bulldozer and a grater during the construction of the Daytona International Speedway before becoming Co- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. With the passing of Bill France, American motorsports has lost a great leader, our country and State have lost an outstanding citizen and I have lost a wonderful friend. He will be remembered as a patriotic American, a pillar of our community, a respected businesman, a compassionate husband and a loving father. To his wife Betty Jane, his son Brian, his daughter Lesa France Kennedy, his brother James, his three grandchildren and the all of the France family, we offer our deepest sympathy. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize Bill France's contributions and ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives of the 110th Congress to join me in remembering a great American.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank our ranking member, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in support of H.R. 1773, the Safe American Roads Act of 2007. This bill has some good provisions in it. I regret that a bill which I consider even better and stronger, which was drafted by Mr. Hunter, the gentleman from California, and introduced in Congress, is not the bill that we are considering. I am sorry Mr. Hunter is not with us today also to speak, but I know he has many important obligations in his responsibility in securing our national defense. Again, I believe Mr. Hunter's bill would have been a stronger bill that would have even more teeth to make certain that Mexican trucks comply with not only our safety regulations, but also our economic regulations against cabotage. Now, let me make the record clear that I served in Congress when NAFTA was voted on in 1993. I did not vote for that legislation, and one reason was some of the unfair provisions, the inequity between the economy of Mexico and the United States. I had no problem with Canada, but Mexico is a different situation. I am for open and fair trade, but what passed in NAFTA then and today was a trade agreement between unequal partners when it comes to Mexico. This administration, the Bush administration, unfortunately, has inherited what I call the haunting legacy of the Clinton administration, one of the haunting legacies, which pushed for passage of a lopsided NAFTA agreement. Back in 1993, in October, actually in October of 1992, President Clinton had only positive things to say about NAFTA. Also, I have quotes by current Speaker Pelosi, then the Representative from California: ``In supporting NAFTA, I am casting my vote for the young people of America and for the future.'' The future isn't to send jobs to the south, to Mexico, and then now open up the borders and truck the product produced by those jobs to the north. The responsibility we have in Congress is to make certain that even though we have to comply with some of the terms of this unfair agreement, that we do protect the safety, that we do protect the economic opportunity and the disaster this unfair agreement has brought upon our economy. So it's critical today that Congress, that what we are doing today maintain, at least at a minimum, in keeping the unfair provisions of the treaty enacted by a Democratic Congress, under the promotion of President Clinton, from doing even more damage to us at this time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time and also for presenting my amendment. My amendment would have required that the Department of Transportation participate in the infrastructure study that is required by this legislation. My amendment ensures that the government transportation experts are fully utilized to identify cost-effective measures for protecting critical infrastructure. Right now, as the bill is drafted, it is just limited to Homeland Security leading that effort. Because our highest risk in this center is involved in addressing risks, terrorist risks, our highest risks are transportation and infrastructure under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, it would only be logical to include them in this effort. I believe the bill as drafted was a mistake, and why the Congress would require a critical infrastructure study like this and not include the Federal agency that has the expertise and the private sector relationships necessary to get the job done. So, again, I have concerns about doing this further directive by the bill. If you stop to look at what the risks are as far as terrorist risks: Look at the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; look at the 1995 Tokyo subway sarin gas attack; look at the Oklahoma City bombing against an infrastructure facility; look at the 9/11 attack using aviation transportation equipment on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon; look at the Madrid train bombings; look at the London underground train and bus bombings. What do they all have in common? They have in common transportation. What does the provision that they have included in this bill have in it? Homeland Security, with no participation with the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation also handles these transportation and infrastructure issues and really should be a part of this study if it in fact goes forward. Now, consider some of our greatest concerns, attacks on hazardous materials, pipelines, chlorine gas, tank cars and transit systems. These are all areas regulated by DOT. And they want to leave them out of this study. The DOT has a long working relationship with all of these transportation and infrastructure issues, and I believe DOT would be a vital partner in assessing the risks and economic analysis associated with the terrorist attacks on our critical infrastructure. And part of the study here is to find out how to get the private sector to participate in this. Who else would be better equipped, a bureaucracy of 177,000 or whatever it is up to, 200,000, in Homeland Security that doesn't have a clue or people who actually work with people in transportation, on transportation projects and with those projects and systems that may be at risk? Including DOT will help us avoid problems like throwing billions of dollars at transit systems without understanding its impact on our economy and mobility. I should point out finally that DOT is already involved in some of the critical infrastructure planning, and my amendment is simply an extension of that effort. It is a reasonable amendment. It doesn't replace or duplicate the Department of Homeland Security or diminish their role over these critical infrastructure protection efforts. And if other appropriate agencies or sectors are being left out, I think they should also be included in the effort. But to leave out DOT is to leave out the success that we need to make any kind of study or future partnership of working together to address terrorist risks and threats. So I thank also Ms. Castor from my State of Florida for offering an amendment today.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce the birth of Emilia Hayward Deck on May 2, 2007 at St. Vincent's Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida. Emilia is the daughter of Wiley and Elizabeth Deck who are both part of our Florida 7th District Congressional Staff. The former Elizabeth Buckles and Wiley Deck met as staff members in our Washington office. Both moved to our Florida District Office in St. Augustine, in 2003. They married and have now expanded our Congressional Family with the arrival of Emilia Hayward Deck. Emilia's proud grandfather is Tony Buckles, Chief of Staff for Representative Bob Filner of California. To the Deck and Buckles families we extend our warmest congratulations.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to take a minute to compliment Mr. Miller and also Mr. McKeon. This is one of the most important bills that this Congress will take up in this session because it deals with, as Mr. Miller said, as I listened to his opening statement, with our disadvantaged youth. And, unfortunately, we have many in this country. But it gives those youth the opportunity for the future and the opportunity that we have all shared that are here on this floor and many of us listening Members. I think the bill is a step in the right direction in requiring that at least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide have a bachelor's or advanced degree in childhood education or related field by September 30, 2013. My amendment is a simple amendment. It would move up that date 2 years, to 2011. I am not a newcomer to this debate. I could go back to 1993, when I came here, and give statements from the floor and back over the years. My degree is in education. I am usually here on transportation and enjoy my service on that committee. But as someone educated as an educator, nothing is more important than the quality of education and those professionals that we have. The Mica amendment moves up the date to have professionals in place to 2011. We can do that. We have done it before. We have actually required qualifications, and now we have more than a majority having an associate degree. So we have done this in the past. Currently, 38 percent of all of our Head Start teachers already meet this goal, so we are only talking about 12 percent in 4 years as opposed to 6 years. Does it really take 6 years to get an additional 12 percent of the teachers to be in our most important educational program with these qualifications? Now, we've moved this program from what I called it 14 years ago, from a glorified babysitting program, to a program that is giving our students the opportunity for quality educational opportunity. And these young people, at this age, deserve the very best. They are coming from the very worst, the worst as far as disadvantage in our society, the worst as far as opportunity, as far as family setting, as far as their readiness for school. Mr. Miller talked about making them ready for school. Well, do you want them ready with someone who is unqualified or someone with the best qualifications? Better prepared, Mr. Miller talked about. We need the most skilled professionals to give them the preparation. And these are our toughest students, the very toughest students. Do you want someone with or without qualifications? I posed a question, and probably the reason I got this amendment out here to the Rules Committee, which is mostly composed of Democrat Members listening, there are more Head Start programs in Democrat districts than there are in Republican districts, just by the sheer economics of it, the demographics. I said, what if I came with a proposal that said, in kindergarten I'm going to recommend that we only have 50 percent of the teachers having a bachelor's degree in Democrat districts; how would you like that? Well, this is what's happening here as you're mandating that we have a poorer quality of teachers with quality for another additional 2 years. So I think we can do better. You heard the $24,000 average pay. That's right. We're going to increase on average a half a billion dollars, from $6.9 billion to $7.4 billion. In my schools, in closing, there are choices. I won't name the counties, but I have seven teachers in one program with $23,000 average salary. I have nine administrators with salaries from $32,000 to $41,600; another county, 21 teachers, $20,100 average salary, eight administrators with salaries from 31- to $42,000. So it's not always how much we spend, it's how we spend it. And we need to spend it on quality education for these, our most disadvantaged students. So I urge you to consider and pass my amendment.

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment. Mr. Oberstar, after the election, became the Chair, I became the ranking member of the Transportation Committee. And we inherited, indeed, a huge backlog of projects. We also inherited a bill that required earmarking because they are Members' projects, and everyone knows the problems that we have had with earmarks in the past. So I can assure the Members that on both sides of the aisle we have done everything possible to vet these projects. I am also sorry that we can't put even more projects in. We just had Mrs. Bono here, and her heart and soul in her work in Congress, which is something she inherited, actually the work, too, of her late husband, Sonny Bono, a good friend and colleague. She wanted that so badly in this, and it is so important, the restoration of the Salton Sea, for her district. You can see how important these projects are to Members and their districts. So we have a good work product. Let me make one point I did not make in opposition to the administration's position on this piece of legislation in that it cost too much. If you look at 2000 when we started these projects, maybe they did cost $5 million. I can tell you that just with inflation and the cost of doing construction projects, having been in the development business, that every day we delay will cost us more; and that is why these projects cost us more, and that is why I am in opposition to the administration's point there. We have evenly divided the projects. I don't think we could have had a fairer distribution. They are Republican, they are not Democrat, but they are of national and district importance, and I think we have done as good a job as you can. I am sure you can find something wrong or questionable, if anyone seeks to do that. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the manager's amendment, and I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to move and urge the passage of this bill, not only through the House but through the other body and conference, so that we can do a better job for the people that we represent in these important environmental and water resources projects. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MICA. Might I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. First of all, I know, Mrs. Bono, that you have worked tirelessly on behalf of restoration of the Salton Sea project. Only through a technicality in our agreement for moving forward with this legislation has your Bono Salton Sea restoration provision been left from this bill. But you have my assurance that you will have top priority for consideration for the conference on something you have worked year after year and so hard for. So before this gets to the President's desk, you have my assurance that it will be part of the President's bill, if we have a bill.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to urge all Members of the House on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1495, which is known as the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. As we have heard from the chairman, this bill authorizes and directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out various studies, projects and programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, shoreline protection and recreation and environmental restoration and protection. Our subcommittee, led by Mr. Baker of Louisiana, held two days of hearings on projects, programs and policies during the development of this legislation. After a careful review, the committee was able to approve the authorization of more than 50 projects with the chiefs' reports relating to flood damage reduction, navigation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration. We also have in this legislation, navigation and ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Mississippi River. Illinois waterway system, and Everglades restoration project, which I would like to talk about in just a moment, and conserving and restoring the Louisiana coastal area. We have in the bill a provision for streamlining and expediting the Corps of Engineers' project delivery and permits system. We have provisions for improvement of the Corps of Engineers' planning and project development process, including independent peer review of larger and more controversial studies. We also have authorization of a number of smaller project modifications, investigations, related to our civil works programs of the Corps of Engineers. I think all in all we have a good piece of legislation that we have worked on in a bipartisan fashion, and you see the product before us today. Now, I know the administration has issued a position opposing this legislation. However, I want to talk to a couple of points that they have raised. They do have a responsibility to be good trustees of the public monies and the difficult situation we find ourselves in financially. But in this legislation between 3 and $4 billion would be typically spent during a WRDA cycle or authorization process on this type of legislation. We have not had a bill since the year 2000. So actually if you do simple math on that, you can see that the total cost of this bill in Federal dollars, $13.1 billion, is reasonable. The total cost with the State participation is $17.8 billion. But we do, indeed, have a backlog of projects over what would amount to at least three cycles. So this WRDA bill, this authorization legislation, in fact, combines the equivalent of all of those years of backlog of projects. The price tag, in fact, is consistent with that assumption. While this bill is considered costly by some, the 2005 WRDA legislation contained almost 900 projects. That is another complaint of the administration, too many projects. This bill contains 682 project provisions. Not that Mr. Oberstar, myself, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Baker haven't had Members throughout the Congress come to us and beg and plead to have additional projects that are critical to their district included in this legislation. I think we, too, have been good custodians and responsible in crafting this legislation. Let me say that the administration also raised some questions about cost benefits. We have gone through this. Mr. Oberstar, myself, Mr. Baker, Ms. Johnson, we have looked at cost benefits. We have done our very best to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars again are well spent and there is a good return for the investment that is being made here by the Federal taxpayer. So those are the reasons that I disagree with my administration on this. I actively support this. I think we have done this in a very good fashion. Finally, I want to talk to some of the measures that are in the bill. You have heard the chairman talk about some of the measures that are in this bill. This bill is important to me, not only as a Member of Congress, and I don't represent the Everglades, but I do represent the State of Florida. It is interesting how it takes time to undo some of the damage that mankind has done to our natural resources and national treasures. I have a copy of the Palm Beach Post, which I kept in a file, from Sunday, April 11, 1993, irony, same month a number of years ago, talking about the Everglades, reversing man's mistakes. I started working on that along with the Clinton administration, Secretary Babbitt. Hear is an article from July 4, 1994, about a $465 million government industry agreement to start cleaning up the Everglades, which had been damaged by man's abuse. Here is another article I pulled from the news journal Daytona Beach News-Journal that says: ``Representative John Mica and the other Members of central Florida's House delegation are in a fortunate position to finish the work the Senate started.'' This is the year 2000. Here we are in 2007. Now, in 2000 we authorized a study. What is important about this bill is we authorize for the first time projects that actually do construction and work in restoring our precious national treasure, and Florida's national environmental treasure, the Everglades. So that is one reason why I am excited about this piece of legislation. It does take a long time and a lot of money. Finally, I do want to also cite that I just inherited the responsibility of the Transportation leader on the Republican side, and I never realized how important these projects are to individual Members. For example, not on our side of the aisle, but Ms. Matsui, a Democrat Member, she has a project in here that would provide a 100- year level of flood protection for the city of Sacramento. Almost a million Americans live in the capital of California, more than twice the population of the pre-Katrina New Orleans that today has only an 80-year level of flood protection. No other community in America of this size has this little flood protection. This is a project important to Ms. Matsui. There are not Republican projects, there are not Democrat projects; there are projects for the people that are important to their survival. And we have seen the mistakes and the errors of our ways in Katrina. Mr. Baker can speak to what he has gone through in Louisiana. We need not repeat those errors. So here we have in this legislation an opportunity to help her and 299 other districts. I wish it was 435. So it has been put together in a bipartisan way. And finally, on my effort, I tried to do it in a transparent way. All of the Republican projects have been on file, open to the public, and any of the earmarks, open to public and press scrutiny. So I have tried to do it in a manner that restores public faith, because I would rather have elected Members of Congress make those decisions, fight for them, and have it done and conducted in a transparent fashion rather than have some bureaucrat down there decide where the taxpayer money, which they just paid in in huge amounts over the past week to Washington, get expended. That is our responsibility, it is elected officials' responsibility, not appointed bureaucrats who don't have the responsibility we have under the Constitution. So, again, I recognize my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Baker. I also want to thank Mr. Costello, who is no longer the Chair or the ranking member, and Mr. Duncan, who was the Chair because this is an inherited work. Again, several bills are combined that are long overdue. So I urge their passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I wish I could have come to the floor today and supported this measure, because rail and transit security are extremely important and it is one of our most important responsibilities as representatives of the people. People are working hard, trying to make a living, raise their families. They send us here to know the facts. And I can tell you, the facts are that this bill was done in haste, particularly the manager's amendment. It is a great example for the House of Representatives and the majority, the new majority and the minority. Because when you subvert and do not conduct yourself in the process that the Founding Fathers had envisioned, a bipartisan approach to crafting legislation, you get yourself tied up in these little knots. Now they are finding flaws in this legislation left and right, deregulating State traffic and railroads. They are scurrying around trying to figure out how are we going to fix this. This is not the way to do the people's business, particularly on an important issue like security. So I will go home and tell people why I voted against this. Many others can go home and say, I voted $7 billion or $8 billion of your money for rail and transit security. But what did it do? Unfortunately, it didn't do the job we need to do in the situation we find ourselves in with terrorist threats and what we have seen in the rest of the world. We are abdicating our responsibility.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the provisions of the offering that have been made by the gentleman. I was wondering if I could inquire as to the content of his modification.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, again, I wish that this bill could truly have been crafted in a bipartisan manner. I have to speak against the manager's amendment because the sponsor of the manager's amendment just stood and admitted to a flaw that is in the bill. Again, this is a lesson to all of us that if we craft these pieces of important legislation, we put partisan politics aside. This isn't the place for partisan politics. This is a national security issue critical to the survival of our people. If we put those aside and we work together on this, we wouldn't find ourselves tied in this little legislative knot that they are trying to figure out: Should we pass this flawed manager's amendment? The bad news is that the flawed provision in section 3 of the manager's amendment allows every State to effectively override safety rules. That is the great part of this system, that the minority and the majority work together and craft legislation and we find some flaws and make some improvements, and we were denied that. The T&I side was denied even one amendment. That is why I opposed the rule, and that is why I am going to oppose the manager's amendment, and that is why I am going to oppose this bill. I will go back and tell folks in my district, I did not vote for this, and it was $7 billion, not because I didn't want to provide security, but I wanted to make sure that their hard-earned money was well spent and we didn't pass in an arbitrary fashion, ignore the rights of the majority and the minority, legislation that would benefit this country, especially in the situation we find ourselves with the terrorist threats we have seen. We don't want a Madrid or a London, but I don't want politics to override what should be good legislation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield at this time 3 minutes to the previous Chair of the Rail Subcommittee and current ranking Republican leader of the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the Republican leader on the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that in fact the way that the amendment is now drawn, the original Thompson amendment offered as amendment No. 1 was in fact flawed and that this would correct that flaw; and the intent that is in the Thompson amendment that would be of a negative impact would be removed by the correction that you are now offering.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for further inquiry?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to have come to the floor and supported this bill. However, the more I learn about some of the provisions of the manager's amendment that will be offered, the more I learn about some of the special interest provisions that have been put in this bill in the name of some special interest, as opposed to national security, I find myself inclined to vote against the measure and final passage, if it continues as it is now crafted. First of all, I truly believe that the security grants that are provided for under the provisions of this legislation will not prevent terrorist attacks. This isn't always a question, as I said earlier on the rule, of how much money we spend. I have no problem as a Member of Congress spending money on rail and transit security. It is how we effectively spend that money. This bill is not going to prevent a Madrid, where cell phones and backpacks were used. This is not going to prevent a London, where clean, unknown suicide bombers exercised their will and slaughtered many people, both aboveground and underground. I was there just weeks before and saw some of the measures that they put in place. Now they were nice surveillance measures, but we can't make the same mistakes. If we want to stop terrorism, we are going to have to penetrate the organizations, the finances and the communications of individuals that are willing to take their own lives and others. This bill is not going to, as it is crafted, provide that. The other thing that was prohibited from both the Homeland Security Committee and the T&I Committee was the ability to amend this. As we saw this product developing, we did not put in a needs assessment or risk assessment, which has never been done for rail or transit security, so we don't know where to spend the money. We heard some of the Members saying we are going to have 600 inspectors. Do we need those 600 inspectors? Someone else said we are going to make these grants available to unions. Is that the best interest or is that serving some special interest? So I have grown to have some very serious concerns about the provisions of this legislation. And the American Association of Railroads has said that, in fact, this is going to dismantle safety and security as we know it under existing law with the preemption clause that has been provided here. So from State to State under the provisions of the way this manager's amendment is crafted, the regulations will vary. Can you imagine a train going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction under those circumstances? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.