John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Again, I do think that we have some serious consequences. Not only would this unprecedented reach back and change in policy put us in turmoil for financing the entire system, what will happen is-- this is simple math. If you are paying these people over $200,000 per year on average, it allows you less entrants. And Congress is the appropriator. We decide on how many hires.

Mr. MICA. Mr Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for the purposes of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the average compensation for an air traffic controller today is $173,000. That is average. The highest paid controller earns $277,937. That is the highest controller. I have 1,397 controllers earning $213,500. Just for the record, the average median household income in Illinois, the home State of the gentleman who just previously spoke, is $48,953. For Mr. LaTourette, the sponsor of this legislation, the average median household income is $42,240. Further for the record, an air traffic controller for the military, and we have a whole corps of air traffic control servicemembers serving in the United States and across the world, right now a sergeant in the U.S. Air force with 10 years experience and those in the combat zone as we speak tonight serving in Iraq at Baghdad Airport, earn $35,919. Of course, they get many benefits on top of this, such as housing. I want to be fair. But that brings some of this debate and the amount of compensation we are talking about hopefully into perspective. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the time in opposition.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5449. Unfortunately, my very good friend, Mr. LaTourette, the gentleman from Ohio, and Mr. Costello, the gentleman from Illinois, support this proposal, but this, unfortunately, is a very seriously flawed bill and piece of legislation, and it comes at a time when we are trying to do everything we can to stabilize and provide economic reform for the aviation industry. Let me talk a little bit about the history of how we got to this situation. Mr. LaTourette has also spoken to the increases that the air traffic controllers have received from 1998 to last year. They did receive some 75 percent, and maybe there was need to adjust the salaries. That translates into about 10 percent per year. But that contract did expire last year, and the air traffic controllers were required and FAA also began negotiations for a new contract. Unfortunately, that drug out for some time, and by the terms of the existing contracts and agreement, as long as no contract was in place, the terms of the old contract prevailed, with some pretty hefty increases in place. What has taken place in fact is an impasse occurred. Under existing law, when that impasse was declared by FAA, the matter was sent to Congress. That has all taken place. That is all history. For some 60 days, Congress had an opportunity to overturn that. And it is true that there was legislation with many Republican cosponsors sympathetic with changing some of the procedures. However, that bill was not retroactive, like the LaTourette proposal. This is a reach-back provision, and it also takes Congress completely out of the process, as opposed to the bill that others had cosponsored. So, this is a bill, again, H.R. 5449, that, if enacted, will change the rules of the game at the bottom of the ninth inning just because one of the teams does not like the outcome of fair negotiations, a legislative process that has already been completed, and, again, we take Congress out of the process. The Constitution provides in Article I that all bills relating to funding and appropriations come out of the House of Representatives, emanate in the House of Representatives. This legislation, again, reaches back and changes the rules of the game. It allows a panel that is not confirmed by Congress, by the Senate, again, a panel of seven, to make appropriations and also authorization decisions that are left to the Congress. So, I have great concern about this procedure. I think it sets a horrible precedent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of clarifying points, if I may. We heard the gentleman from Illinois talk about sending this contract back to the bargaining table. We heard reference by the previous speaker also of the panel that will get this. I had the honor and privilege of chairing the House Civil Service Committee for some 4 years. I know a little bit about the Federal Service Impasse Panel. The Federal Service Impasse Panel is not confirmed by the Senate. It has no congressional confirmation. It has seven appointees by the President. Ninety-eight percent of the issues it has handled, and this is what the LaTourette bill would do is send it to this panel, 98 percent of the issues that it has handled are nonwage. That is a fact. It deals primarily with quasi-governmental and nonappropriated, that is nonappropriated by Congress, mostly agencies that generate their own income through fees. So this is unprecedented in sending it to this panel. Now, they do not have the staff to deal with this. Maybe it will go on to the Labor Relations Board and then maybe it will be further appealed. But remember, the name of this game is keeping this stirred up and not resolved as long as possible, because we have then the provisions of the Clinton contract, which expired on Monday. In addition, there are differences between the bill by Mrs. Kelly, and I applaud her for her bill, first her bill did not reach back as the LaTourette bill did, and secondly, her bill kept Congress in the process. The LaTourette bill takes Congress out of the process, turns this process really over to, again, a board that has really no congressional oversight or participation in even confirming the members in an unprecedented fashion. So that again provides us with some statistics. Just to also further clarify cash compensation versus total compensation. The highest controller, if we take cash compensation, only is $231,477 for the record. The 1,397 controllers about the statutory cap, they receive, again without benefits, $175,366. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again for the record, first of all, the gentleman from New York just talked about this unfair process. This is the same process that was put into effect during the Clinton administration in 1996, and in 1998 gave the air traffic controllers a 75 percent increase, the same exact process that we are working under. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the average median household incomes by State that I have for New York is $47,349. Now, I do not want anyone to think that we are cutting existing air traffic controllers. Under the contract that went into effect on Monday, their compensation and their benefits, they will rise from 2007 to 2011 from $173,000 to $185,000. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to take just a minute. I have the greatest respect for Mr. LoBiondo. He is one of the hardest workers in Congress. I went up to some of the Federal aviation facilities, testing facilities and others in his district. He is one of the strongest advocates in Congress for good, sound aviation. I am sorry we disagree a bit. I know a lot of Members are under pressure. I thought about this. And I thought this is one reason why we should not even have these issues before Congress. Ninety-eight percent of the Federal employees, in fact, have a general wage chart and schedule. You can see why countries like Argentina, Germany and others have the tail wagging the dog. I feel bad for Members who are in that predicament. But our responsibility is to the taxpayer. It is also to a sound aviation system, which I think both Mr. LaTourette, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Costello, everyone agrees is important. The dilemma that we face if we pass LaTourette, and we are working under existing law that did give us 60 days, that did expire on Monday, and we have a new contract. What happens is, given the nature of this impasse panel and its lack of any experience in dealing with these kinds of issues, this could go on and on. Now, Mr. Knollenberg was on his way. He is an appropriator and oversees appropriations and was to speak against Mr. LaTourette's proposal. But what happens here, Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, is, quite simply put, H.R. 5449 pulls the rug out from underneath actually our entire national aviation system and the whole funding process when we can least deal with it. Airport projects, and Members should be aware of this, when you have to put 1.9, and I asked the attorneys from FAA, is this enough, at bay for a number of years, and they said, it will probably be double that figure that will be put at bay. I have right now $1.9 billion, Mr. Costello knows this, left in our entire airport improvement funds at this time. So we put airport projects at risk with unpredictable costs and salaries, leaving this hanging out. Then we also hurt the core of other FAA employees. This chart shows the total compensation gap between controllers and other FAA employees. It is a gigantic gap, some 42 percent. So we leave them hanging out. We leave all of our projects for funding around the country, we leave air traffic control modernization, which is the system that gives us the very best technology for safety. So that is of a great concern to me. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate consideration of my amendment by the subcommittee. This amendment adds the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to the list of committees to receive a report on the April 25, 2006, unmanned aerial vehicle mishap. The operation of Customs and Border Protection unmanned aerial vehicles sometimes occurs and has occurred in our National Airspace System, and that is also taking place along our Nation's southern border, and perhaps eventually that will also occur on the northern border. All Customs and Border Protection UAV operations are conducted now in compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration with an FAA-issued Certificate of Authorization. It sets forth various restrictions and conditions of operation. Operations will take place within an FAA-established Temporary Flight Restriction area. The operations of UAVs outside the restricted airspace, in the integrated airspace with manned vehicles, poses some unique safety issues for the FAA. Information indicates that the unmanned aerial system accident rate is two to three orders of magnitude greater than it is for manned systems. That is why it is important that the Customs and Border Protection UAV, which was involved in a mishap on April 25, 2006, and operating again within this space and under an FAA-issued certificate of authorization, should also be under the jurisdiction or at least the concern of this report provided to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This accident is being investigated by the National Safety Transportation Board with the assistance of the FAA. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House has great interest in learning about this accident, particularly as the FAA is developing regulations and procedures for the integration of these UAV vehicles into our National Air System for the future. It is a minor amendment, but it does recognize some of the jurisdictional interests of our committee, and I ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for his consideration and also for his acceptance of this amendment.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I yield back the balance of my time, and urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have made great progress on this important bill dealing with homeland security which is so essential for our Nation, particularly at this time in history and the challenges that we face. The amendment that I am proposing tonight is a simple limit on some of the funding for non-screener Transportation Security Administration personnel, that is, TSA administrative personnel. What we would like to do is put some limits on those positions in some of the airports that are participating in our Screening Partnership Program. We have had five demonstration projects in airports in varying sizes across the country, and we have had private screening companies under Federal supervision. Unfortunately, what has happened is we have an additional layer of bureaucracy imposed by TSA and duplicate positions of the private screening companies. For example, and I will submit for the Record a complete list of these numbers of personnel, but in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, we have 18 administrative personnel; in Kansas City we have some 39; in San Francisco, 42; and in Rochester, New York, 18. Now, it is important that we do have TSA management, we have TSA oversight, we have TSA controlling these programs. But the duplicative administrative costs and burden is what this amendment deals with. Most of these positions are in excess of $100,000. We can save money, we can put more people on line in screening positions and cut some of the administrative costs out. Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of the amendment.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his staff and the subcommittee working with us. I think this will make us run better, more cost-effective, put more people online and less people in the TSA bureaucracy that has been created. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and the subcommittee.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, the reason I am standing here is to engage the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy. First of all, I want to just take a second to commend Chairman Hobson and the ranking member and the Appropriations Subcommittee staff for their outstanding work in the difficulty in bringing some of these measures before the floor, for their hard work. Mr. Chairman, my Florida district includes the coastline along Flagler County, which has been dramatically devastated by recent hurricanes and damaging storms. The beach has steadily eroded; and sections of our historic and scenic national highway A1A have been washed away by the storms. Because some of the road has fallen into the Atlantic Ocean, the Florida Department of Transportation has installed a temporary seawall in those areas. Initially, we had some problems in reaching a local consensus on the best way to restore the beach and secure this scenic and coastal highway. However, with hurricane season approaching, if this vital highway falls, our only emergency route in this area could be lost. Earlier this month, I brought together our local leaders and decisionmakers to discuss the problem and identify solutions. A consensus has been reached that we must complete a feasibility study and cooperate with the Corps of Engineers so the critical restoration work can be expedited. State and local officials will also be working together with Federal officials to explore cost-effective alternative restoration technologies. I would like to, finally, ask the chairman if he would continue to work with me on this very important project for my district and also in conference to provide the critical resources to protect and restore the coastal areas and devastated beaches in Flagler County, Florida.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend and colleague from Florida here, and I am dismayed that, unfortunately, politics has not kept up with technology or good energy policy in this country. Florida has faced an energy crisis before. Back in the 1970s, I was in the Florida legislature and I voted during that crisis to drill in the Florida Everglades for oil. You won't believe this, but today we are producing oil safely and in an environmentally sound fashion from the Everglades. This is a myth here about this 3 miles, and we should not drill as close as 3 miles. We should look at the conditions. But today we have the technology to drill safely and in an environmentally sound manner. Florida's population is expected to grow 29 percent by 2020. The consumption of natural gas is expected to grow by 140 percent. Why? You all were here, many of you here, during the 1990s. The Clinton administration proposed that we convert our coal and oil plants in Florida to natural gas. Well, 28 of the 34 electrical generating plants designed in Florida are going to need natural gas. We built a billion dollar pipeline across the gulf, and we need to hook up to that. Cuba and China are going to be drilling very close to our shores, and they will be getting oil and gas. The American people and Floridians will be getting the shaft. We can do this in an environmentally sound fashion. We don't have to play politics. What is our alternative for stable sources? Nigeria? The Mideast? I say no.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. The defense authorization bill is one of the most important measures we take before the Congress because it sets the policy for the Department of Defense. The purpose of the amendment that I have offered and has graciously been included in this en bloc amendment is to recognize the service and sacrifice and make that part of our policy to again realize what took place with the victims of the Bataan Death March during World War II. This amendment also expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should seek to provide compensation to the remaining survivors. Those captured in the Bataan Death March spent an average of 3.5 years in captivity in Japanese prison camps and forced labor factories. Chairman Hunter described some of the torture and forced labor. In order to compensate for the torture, malnutrition and forced labor they endured, the survivors should be provided at least what was then set forth, which is $4 a day for the time spent in captivity, and the bill provides for some compounded annual interest. Even private contractors who were captured and imprisoned received $60 per day. They were, indeed, victims of torture and injustice and unfairness. This amendment is important for Congress to recognize the unbelievable sacrifices of our soldiers who defended our Nation and fought in the Philippines. Very few survivors of the Bataan Death March are still alive today. In fact, one reason I got involved in this is because of a local veteran by the name of Sam Moody, and Sam passed away since I undertook his request. There are only about 900 survivors and widows. So it is not really the money. It is also the policy that we set here today.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Lance Corporal Eric Anthony Palmisano, who died in a tragic accident while serving our Nation in Al Asad, Iraq. Prior to joining the Marine Corps, Eric spent much of his early childhood living in Chicago and eventually moved to Tampa, Florida with his family. Eric had lived in central Florida since 1996, and attended the University of Central Florida where he was active in sports and studied criminal justice. Eric enlisted in the Marine Corps and attended Basic Training in Camp Pendleton, California last year. He stood out both in training and during his service and quickly became one of the best Marines in his unit. Proud of his achievements, Eric once wrote to his fiancee, ``This is an opportunity to prove--mostly to myself--that when I give something all my effort, I cannot fail.'' We should all remember Eric's courage and his ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. The freedom we enjoy and the liberty in the world for which he fought are part of the great legacy that Lance Corporal Eric Anthony Palmisano leaves behind. To Eric's fiancee and his entire family, we extend our deepest sympathy. Mr. Speaker, because of Lance Corporal Eric Anthony Palmisano's sacrifice for our country, I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing his service in our Nation's Armed Forces and remembering both his life and his dedication to the United States of America.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that would extend the Federal Aviation Administration's war risk insurance program for U.S. commercial air carriers. Ever since 9/11, the commercial insurance market has been unwilling to provide the war-risk insurance that our nation's airlines need. That continues today and there is no foreseeable end to this situation. If airlines don't have that insurance coverage, as a practical matter they won't be able to fly. Because of this situation, Congress must extend the program to provide U.S. airlines the war-risk insurance that they need. The accompanying legislation would do that for five years. As many of us remember, immediately after 9/11 commercial insurers in lockstep cancelled the airlines' war-risk policies. That withdrawal of essential insurance coverage caused a crisis that Congress on September 21, 2001 resolved by granting the Federal Aviation Administration the authority to issue war-risk insurance policies to U.S. airlines. The FAA today provides war-risk insurance to some 70 U.S. airlines. The FAA program has been generating roughly $150 million annually in premium payments to the treasury and we can expect about the same amount of payments in 2006. That is 6 or 7 times what the U.S. airline industry paid for that coverage before 9/11. Congress has repeatedly extended the FAA's program since 2002 because we have recognized that war-risk insurance for the airlines is indispensable. Airlines won't fly without that coverage because they cannot bear the financial risk of a catastrophic act of terrorism against them. Expressed another way, no one wants large aircraft operating in the United States that do not have adequate insurance coverage. I wish that I could report that the commercial market for aviation war-risk insurance has returned to its pre-9/11 condition. Unfortunately, it has not; the marketplace is failing to cover the terrorism risks to which airlines are exposed. Indeed, the situation has worsened. Premium costs and coverage terms in the commercial market have not been and are not today reasonable. Of immediate concern is how the marketplace is treating coverage of aviation losses attributable to weapons of mass destruction. The FAA's insurance policy quite properly covers this risk. But if U.S. airlines were required to rely on the commercial market for war-risk insurance, today they effectively could not get WMD coverage for their aircraft (in insurance terms, their ``hulls''.) More ominously, it appears that this year the commercial market will stop providing most third-party WMD coverage. This means that if a WMD incident were to occur on an aircraft in flight, commercial insurance would not cover the death and injury of persons on the ground, or damage to property on the ground. Neither airlines nor their employees, who have borne so much of the financial adversity that the U.S. airline industry has suffered since 9/11, can afford such an increase in premiums. Between 2001 and 2005, U.S. airlines had net losses of more than $40 billion. A staggering 135,000 jobs have been lost in the airline industry since 2001. The compensation of those who remain in the industry in many instances has been slashed. Current projections are that the airlines will lose another $2 billion in 2006. With stubbornly high oil prices, now $67 per barrel, that projection may turn out to be optimistic. If Congress does not act, the already ailing U.S. airlines will be forced into a commercial market that provides war-risk insurance that is extraordinarily expensive; does not provide anywhere near the coverage that is necessary; and continues to write war-risk insurance policies with seven-day cancellation clauses, the same clauses that caused so much turmoil right after 9/11. We must therefore renew the FAA's war-risk insurance program. And, realistically, we must do so for an extended period. We have had one- year renewals of the program since 2002. We would all be better served if the extension were lengthier, which is why the accompanying legislation would extend the program for 5 years. I am pleased to introduce this needed legislation today.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair of this important subcommittee, Mr. Souder, for his leadership in bringing to the floor today probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will consider in this entire session of Congress. Not only do I thank him for his leadership and being a long-term soldier in this battle, but also the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member, whom I have had the privilege to work with, who is also dedicated to dealing with this scourge on our Nation. I say ``scourge on our Nation,'' because we just heard the previous speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey, talk about what illegal narcotics and drug abuse, substance abuse, has done to our Nation. We have statistics. There are more than 20,000 American drug casualties a year. If we look at just the 3 years we have had the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost some 2,000 of our troops in service. We have lost more than 20,000 per year in our streets and neighborhoods, and those are only the recorded statistics. It is not all of the victims of crime and the murders. These are people who have died just from drug overdose in our communities, and many of them are our young people, the future of our Nation lost. The cost in jails, incarceration, I am told 60 percent of those behind bars are there because of substance abuse. The social costs on all of our social agencies across this Nation is high. Again, there is probably no greater social challenge that we have than the ravages of substance and drug abuse, child abuse, spouse abuse, all types of acts that we see that are almost unspeakable because of the effects of illegal narcotics. I will say that President Bush and John Walters have done an excellent job in a number of areas. They set out measurable and accountable goals, and some of them have been achieved. We have seen a dramatic reduction in youth drug abuse. But we have a constant change in the challenge. I know working with Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings, we have seen the crack epidemic. We saw the heroin epidemic that ravaged Baltimore and other cities, great cities across the Nation. We have seen designer drugs. Now we see the meth scourge. So we have to have a flexible and adaptable policy. Hopefully this plan and the 5-year reauthorization provides that. It is not always how much we spend, it is how we spend it. I think this administration has also focused attention on High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area designations, HIDTA, which we have done over the years, and we have set some of those in stone, and we keep funding them year after year. We need to look at how we spend that, how much we spend and where we put the resources for high-intensity approaches to going after problems that do shift and change. I think that is an important debate. I am not crazy about moving it over to the Department of Justice, but I do think we need a more accountable HIDTA program. In conclusion, though, we do have a changing threat. We have seen some successes, as I said, with our youth. Plan Colombia, which we fought for during the nineties, we finally got implemented. It is an incredible success. We have some challenges to look forward to, the disruption in South America with people like Morales in Bolivia, whose policies raise great questions about the progress we have made in controlling illegal narcotics. But we do know from our experience that we have to have a plan, we have to spend our money wisely, and hopefully this reauthorization does that. We do know that we must focus on good education programs, up-to-date prevention programs, interdiction, strong enforcement programs, and then treatment programs that we also have measurable results from. So I am pleased to join my colleagues in speaking for this reauthorization, and I hope that the final product will do even more in addressing this serious problem our society faces.