John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Today it is my honor and privilege to bring this legislation, which will recognize the leadership of an outstanding American patriot, someone who serves as a role model for all Americans. I am very proud of Colin Powell and again of his service to our Nation. I urge the support of this bill.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1413.

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of Senate bill S. 1786. This legislation authorizes emergency grants to airports to repair damage caused by both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Specifically, this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants under the existing Airport Improvement Program, also referred to as AIP, funds in fiscal year 2006 for hurricane-related costs incurred by public-use airports in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas. Under this bill, affected airports may receive grants for emergency capital costs. Some of those costs include repairs to terminal buildings, to hangars, runways, airfield signage, lighting, fencing, navigation aids and fuel systems. In addition, emergency operating costs resulting from the hurricane will also be eligible for grants. This would cover items such as the cost of putting fences back up, renting generators and hiring extra security personnel. This bill would also waive the local cost-share requirement that traditionally applies to grants made under the AIP program, the Airport Improvement Program. Many of these airports, particularly the small airports that have been shut down for an extended period of time, lack the ability to pay even the traditional 10 percent local match that would otherwise be required of them under the Airport Improvement Program. Over 40 airports were damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and are in very serious and desperate need in some instances of the provisions of this bill. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that these airports, in total, will have sustained damages of some $160 million or more. Of this total, some $47 million has already been funded by using fiscal year, the current year that we are in, 2005, or just left, I should say, 2005 Airport Improvement Program funds. This was critical to getting some of the airports reopened quickly after the storms, and it also provided much-needed transportation links to the disaster areas. However, at least $113 million in damages still remains to be funded in fiscal year 2006. These repairs are essential to restoring our system of airports to pre-hurricane conditions and also to the high standards that we require. It is important to note that this bill does not increase Federal spending. Rather, it would temporarily broaden the eligible uses of existing Airport Improvement Program funds, AIP funds, so that the full spectrum of hurricane repair costs can be met. After the hurricanes that damaged several Florida airports last year, I am particularly aware of the devastation that can be caused by these storms and the need to repair critical aviation facilities and infrastructure as quickly as possible. I, therefore, am pleased to join wholeheartedly with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), Aviation Subcommittee ranking member, in urging the immediate passage of this much-needed legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I know we all saw the pictures that were quite shocking in New Orleans, and many people were stunned by the level of poverty that we saw when the dikes and the levees broke. Much more was broken in that community and our communities, and that is, the education of our poorest children. No piece of legislation will do more, I think, in advancing the interests and the educational opportunities for our children than this legislation. So I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and others involved in moving this important piece of legislation forward, improving the quality and also improving the management, making certain with this amendment that every dollar goes towards the betterment of those disadvantaged in our society. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and others who have worked on this legislation. There is probably no piece of legislation in this Congress that is more important to the future of this country and our children and our students than this piece of legislation. I have educated as an educator and have worked over the years to try to get improvement in the quality of Head Start, and I commend all of those involved and also the President of the United States for emphasizing improving the quality of Head Start. We spend $7,222 per student for some 900,000 students involved in Head Start and improving the quality. These young people can learn, and they should have an academic component, and we should have the best personnel in these Head Start programs, and we have gone a long way in that regard. Unfortunately, over the course of the last years, we have had incidents of waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, even financial abuse of taxpayer dollars in the Head Start programs, and again, we have limited taxpayer dollars to expend, and we want them expended in the most efficient and proper manner. While a large majority of Head Start programs have very responsible management and organization in place, I think Congress has an obligation to improve known problems before they get worse and also insist on correction. Weak or failing Head Start programs are unfair to taxpayers, but mostly, and most importantly, they are unfair to the children who need assistance in these programs, not to mention they are unfair to the taxpayers. So this amendment directs the Secretary of HHS to undertake a management reform initiative, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for crafting this amendment, and he has my strong support, and I am pleased to offer it because we want this to be the best program possible. In conclusion, I just want to give a couple of examples. I have one Head Start program I looked at that has 135 students, 17 teachers, and none of the teachers are certified in the program. That should be corrected by this legislation. But the cost for the program is $900,000, and we are spending $72,000 per student on this one Head Start program. I have other Head Start programs, one in my district, where we have 526 students, and we reviewed what other preschool programs were paying. Right now, it is costing us about $8,439 per student. The most expensive private prep school in the district costs $8,400 a year. The private Catholic school costs $2,160 a year, and the private Christian academy costs $4,400 a year. We need to look at what the management, what the waste and inefficiencies are in the programs that we have with Head Start, make certain that we are expending this money properly, that we eliminate bureaucracy, wasteful mismanagement and, unfortunately, in some instances, fraud and abuse. This amendment will go a long way towards achieving that goal and making certain that every one of these taxpayer dollars are spent in the best way to benefit these children and give them truly a head start. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the citizens of Taiwan and to welcome their democratically elected President, Chen Shui-bian, to the United States of America. As you know, Taiwan has been a friend and stalwart ally of the United States for over 50 years. Together we have opposed communism and supported the principles of freedom and democracy. Our nations have worked together to fight terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty in Africa and adversity worldwide. Through this relationship, our countries have seen strengthened political and economic ties leading to mutual prosperity. Today, Taiwan is our nation's eighth largest trading partner and a valuable advocate for free trade and democracy in the Asian Pacific region and beyond. Strengthening the relationship and expanding cooperation between the United States and the Republic of China in Taiwan should remain a national priority. Mr. Speaker, because of President Chen Shui-bian's continued dedication to the American-Taiwanese alliance, I ask all Members of the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing his visit to the United States.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained because of medical reasons and was unable to vote on rollcall 453. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this measure.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 202.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who will relate some of the great Hellenic roots of Constantino Brumidi.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this morning in support of House Concurrent Resolution 202. This is a bill authorizing the use of the Rotunda of the United States Capitol for a ceremony on July 26 honoring Constantino Brumidi on the 200th anniversary of his birthday. On June 22, 2005, President Bush issued a proclamation which honored and celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Constantino Brumidi. That is the action that brings us here today, to permit a ceremony in Constantino Brumidi's honor to be held in the Capitol Rotunda. Constantino Brumidi has been called the Michelangelo of the United States Capitol Building. House Concurrent Resolution 202 was introduced both to honor the life and also the work of Constantino Brumidi, who was an Italian immigrant also with strong family Hellenic roots who spent some 25 years, from 1855 to 1880, painting, decorating, and enhancing the beauty of our United States Capitol building. Brumidi was born in Italy in 1805 and he worked as an artist in Rome and the Vatican where he had many commissions, including a portrait of Pope Pius IX. In 1852, Brumidi immigrated to the United States and he dedicated the balance of his life to making our Capitol building one of the most impressive structures in this great Nation and really in the world. In 1865, Brumidi spent some 11 months walking dangerously high atop the Capitol Rotunda laboring on his masterpiece which if you go to the center of the Rotunda and look up, you see his famous work entitled ``The Apotheosis of Washington,'' in the eye of the Capitol dome. Six years later, he created the first tribute to an African American in the Capitol when he placed the figure of Crispus Attucks at the center of the painting which memorializes and pays tribute to those patriots who were lost in the Boston Massacre. In 1878 at the age of 72 and in poor health, Brumidi began his final work and that was on the Rotunda frieze around the edge of the center of the Capitol dome. That frieze chronicles the history of the United States. Constantino Brumidi's life and work exemplifies the life of really millions of immigrants who came to the United States to seek opportunity and to seek freedom in America. Brumidi and many others who immigrated to the United States provided their skills and their hard work, and they bettered their lives and they bettered the lives of their children, their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren, many who serve in this Congress, many who serve across this land and whose daily lives enrich every day the United States of America. NAIF, the National Italian-American Foundation, is an organization which promotes American and Italian relations, cultural and business relations and numerous other U.S. Italian groups that support this effort to recognize the outstanding work of Constantino Brumidi. Constantino Brumidi is now part of the ages. He is deceased. However, his great artistic contributions all around us in this United States Capitol live on and give both beauty and also life, continuing life, to our Nation's Capitol building. Mr. Speaker, 2005 is the bicentennial of Brumidi's birth, and I can think of no better way to honor this patriotic Italian-American's contribution to our great Nation than by passing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 202) permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to honor Constantino Brumidi on the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I do thank both sides of the aisle for participating in this, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for their leadership, and others. Rarely do we get to use the very center of the Capitol building, the Rotunda, in any ceremony. The Congress requires a joint resolution and that that resolution be considered by the other body for the purpose of honoring one of our citizens. So it is very rare. We paid tribute to Ronald Reagan. We have paid tribute to great Americans, Rosa Parks, in awarding the Congressional Gold Medal, leaders, political and social leaders. How fitting it is that we take time as a Congress to recognize one of the artistic and cultural contributors to this great Capitol building on the 200th anniversary of Brumidi's birth. So we not only honor next week in this special ceremony Constantino Brumidi, but also all the sons and daughters of this great Nation, immigrants, who made not only this Capitol an incredible symbol of democracy and a beautiful place to work and visit and to have as our United States Capitol, but also to honor all those who have made this a great country. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Chief Warrant Officer Four Chris J. Scherkenbach, who died on June 28 from injuries sustained during combat operations in Afghanistan and in service to our country. Chris was proud to serve in the United States Army for 18 years, and as a Night Stalker was a member of our Special Operations forces for the past 8 years. He had been assigned to B Company, 3rd Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) at Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia. Chief Warrant Officer Chris J. Scherkenbach's awards and decorations include the Air Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terror Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon and Senior Army Aviator Badge. He was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star Medal and an Air Medal with Valor device, the Master Army Aviator Badge, the Meritorious Service Medal and the Combat Action Badge. Chris's family describes him as a strong man who had a firm sense of justice, who believed in his mission and stood up for what he knew was right, and who perished doing what he loved. We should all remember Chris's courage and his ultimate sacrifice for our nation--``Greater love hath no man than to give up his life for others.'' The freedom we enjoy and the liberty in the world for which he fought are part of the great legacy Chief Warrant Officer Four Chris J. Scherkenbach leaves behind. A native of Jacksonville, Chris was born in Illinois on November 3, 1964. A devoted husband to his wife Michelle, Chris was also a loving son, brother and uncle and will be dearly missed. To all of Chris's family, we extend our deepest sympathy. Mr. Speaker, because of Chief Warrant Officer Four Chris J. Scherkenach's sacrifice for our country, I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing his service in our nation's Armed Forces and remembering both his life and his dedication to the United States of America.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in very strong opposition to the Sanders amendment. I chair the Subcommittee on Aviation, and I can say that we have been involved for a number of years. We have had a comprehensive 3-year study by the Federal Aviation Administration, and in February of 2005, we awarded a contract to provide automated flight services for the next 10 years by a competent contractor. This competitive sourcing process was supported by the aircraft owners and pilots association. They are the primary organization that represents many of the 600,000 pilots that we heard the sponsor of the amendment refer to. They are the main users of flight service stations, private pilots. Flight service stations do not control air traffic. Flight service stations receive and file flight plans and provide pilot weather briefings, en route communications, and search and rescue services to the general aviation pilots. According to their pilots, again AOPA, and this is Phil Boyer, he said this is the way the current system works for the safety of our pilots and so-called security in the air: ``Any pilot who has been stuck on hold for 20 minutes trying to get a weather briefing can tell you, the system is overloaded and frequently non-responsive. The system had to change, and this is a change for the better.'' He also said, ``Pilots are going to be much better served and much safer.'' Now, private pilots do recognize that the current system that we have in place is antiquated and it is costing us more than $600 million a year. So the worst part about this is we are paying more and getting bad service, or no service, as the head of the Aircraft Pilots Association has said. So this contract is estimated to save the taxpayers about $2 billion over the next 10 years and provide dramatically improved service. If this amendment passes, in fact, there will be no transition money; and on top of that, there will be a $350 million penalty for termination of the contract. Under the FAA reform plan, $2.2 billion in taxpayers' dollars will be saved, and again we will have new technology to make the airspace for our general aviation pilots safer, with the best, most efficient, cost effective technology and, at the same time, we protect the employees that are in place. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to consider this amendment and defeat it.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 130. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 28, line 15, beginning with ``provided further'' through page 29, line 2. These provisos violate clause 2 of rule XXI. They change existing law which constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment because it does do away with the reforms that this appropriation subcommittee has imposed on Amtrak. As I said earlier, I have been on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for some 13 years. I watched for more than 4 years when they had an Amtrak reform council look at the operations of Amtrak and come up with recommendations that were made to Congress; and, sure enough, they ignored those recommendations. This is a tough business to reform Amtrak and eliminate some of these politically popular routes. But the cost of those routes, as we have heard, range from $242 subsidizing per ticket on the Sunset Limited, some $466 to run the route that we saw here. Some of those go into my State, Florida. But it is time to reevaluate those routes, and we must eliminate them if we have to, only by legislation, because the reform which we have tried to do through an advisory council and commission to look at this in an independent study, all that has failed. I do support the President in really drawing a line in the sand and saying we must impose reforms on Amtrak. Now, we have heard this analogy, and I chair the Subcommittee on Aviation, on how much we subsidize aviation. But every ticket that is sold by Amtrak is subsidized by $49, every single ticket. In aviation that is not the case, I say to my colleagues. We heard how much money goes in, but that money is raised by a 7.5 percent ticket tax. The next time you get your airline ticket, look at 7.5 percent, look at the other fees. There is a passenger facilitation fee, and that could be anywhere from a few dollars on up. There is an aviation security fee of $5. You hear the airlines complaining about how taxed their passengers are. The passengers are paying their full fare, including a fuel tax. Amtrak pays no fuel tax, there is no passenger tax, there is no security fee. There is no contribution. Besides that, they are losing, on every ticket they sell, an average of $49. Now, I am a strong supporter of mass transit, high-speed rail, rail as an alternative; and I do know that some of that has to be subsidized. I will vote to subsidize this. But a loss of nearly $500 a ticket, and that is what this amendment would do, will restore all those losing routes. Now, why has Amtrak not changed out some of these routes? Let us be a little candid among friends here. Labor cut sweetheart deals so most of the Amtrak employees are going to get 7 years' salary and benefits assistance; some will get 5 years. There is a cost. We cannot eliminate one single route without paying those benefits that have already been negotiated. But at some time, we have to pay the piper, and sometimes we have to cut the losses. Now, out in America right now, probably not watching the proceedings of this House, are millions of Americans who are working hard. It is hard for me to tell them to go out there and work even harder, maybe get another part-time job so you can send that money here to Washington, so we can have them waste it. When they provide food service and take in a dollar, it costs them $2. They lost a third of a billion dollars in the past 3\1/2\ years on food service. When they try to put high-speed rail in, and I am a strong advocate of high-speed rail, we have neither high-speed and we do not have service. It is down the tubes. It was going 83 miles an hour. That is not high-speed service, even by our own standards which are, under Federal law, 120 miles an hour. So let us make the reform that is necessary. The chairman and the subcommittee have done an excellent job in forcing some of these reforms that are long overdue. Let us defeat this ill-conceived amendment. Let us reform Amtrak. Let us provide good service, not a Soviet-style train endurance test for passengers, but modern, high- speed rail and long-distance service across the United States, and give service to passengers that do not have that service available, at the lowest cost to the taxpayers. We can do that.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the paragraph.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase ``to be derived from the airport and airway trust fund'' beginning on page 5, line 25, and ending on line 26. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 112. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law, and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to what page that would apply to, through what page?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 110. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law, and therefore, it constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.