John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We are all aware of the aircraft incursion in the National Capital Region airspace last week. I believe that the response to that event demonstrates that coordination and communication between the various Federal agencies works well. Each agency, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations (AMO) had the same information, communication and coordination was excellent, and each agency fulfilled their role as expected. It has been my understanding that each agency, including AMO, has a specific role to play. The FAA is the lead and has sole authority over airspace management and control at all times. The TSA handles airspace security policy within the Department of Homeland Security. AMO handles tracking and intercepting aircraft in violation of FAA airspace rules and orders in the National Capital Region, and handles other law enforcement operations. Finally, the DOD is in charge of airspace defense. These rules have been long established and are not in question. Therefore, I am unsure why there is a perceived need for a lead agency within the Department of Homeland Security in these situations even more, I am unsure if AMO is the proper entity to fulfill that role. Nevertheless, I believe strongly that FAA must retain airspace management and control at all times . . . before, during and after an event, terrorist or otherwise. Without a doubt, aviation safety is of paramount importance, even during an incursion event, and the FAA is the proper authority and lead in this regard. I must remind my colleagues that the incursion last week turned out not to be a terrorist event and it is the FAA who is pursuing punitive action against the pilot in question. Since this is most often the case, it seems strange to give AMO, a law enforcement agency within Customs and Border Protection, the lead in airspace security. If one thing went right last week it was communication, coordination and each Federal agency understanding and fulfilling their role. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Souder amendment.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Hopefully that 2 minutes will be sufficient to deal with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does make a successful program even more successful. Sometimes that is hard to find in government agencies and activities and it is also sometimes hard to find in the incredible amount of dollars that we spend for homeland security. This takes a program that was opposed by the airlines, somewhat by the administration, by the other body, by some Members on both sides of the aisle and actually takes a program that gives us a last line of defense, an additional layer. This is in addition to the air marshals. This is in addition to secured cockpit doors and other improvements that we have put in place. These individuals involved in this, the pilots, I have nothing but the greatest praise for their going forward in a long training program, it takes a full week, going practically to the end of the earth. I went out there with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), he represents Albuquerque, and then we went to Roswell, which is 2 or 3 hours to the south. I said, are we there yet? He said, no, tomorrow I'm taking you to the end of the earth which is where they have put this program. I cannot tell you how many pilots have participated in this, both commercial passenger and cargo. It will exceed the number of air marshals that we have in this fine program. This does some things in helping them access recurrent training that is required, improves communications and gives them safe weapons carriage. It is a great program. They are great, dedicated Americans and pilots involved in this program and this enhances a very successful back line of defense for aviation security. I commend the gentleman from Oregon, the former ranking member of our subcommittee, for his efforts.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is not a good amendment. I am surprised that this amendment was even considered by the Rules Committee. The administration proposed a $3 increase in security fees. Why did they propose that? They proposed that because yesterday we passed $4.6 billion just for passenger screening, of which the current fee of $2.50, a maximum of $5 per one way, even if you have more segments, security fee, which we imposed after September 11 to fund the TSA, falls $2 billion short. So we are taking out of the general fund another $2 billion to fund this very expensive system that does not work very well. This is a report of the Inspector General, and it is a secret report, I cannot discuss this, but I tell you, the system fails. Before the other body, Richard Skinner, acting Inspector General of the Homeland Security Department January 26, 2005 said; ``The ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of airports fared no better than the performance of screeners prior to September 11, 2001.'' Now, what is wrong? We do not have the technology. We do not have the technology. And I have proposed that we double the fee, and that we put it on technology that will do a better job. Not only will it do a better job, the GAO has said that we can decrease personnel by 78 percent for those that screen the baggage by hand now behind these counters, that use an army, almost half of the 45,000 personnel. So we are paying more, getting less. This proposal would reduce $1 billion a year that cost to the taxpayers. This is a bad amendment. The airlines may like this amendment, but let me tell you what they will do. If we do not correct and reform this system, we will have another 9/ 11 because this expensive structure that we have in place does not work. It needs to be changed out with technology. These reports say it. As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am telling you that we need it. And the only way to fund it, and do not tell me we have not helped the airlines. I stood up here and fought for $5 billion for them after 9/11. We gave them another $3 billion on top of that for security improvements. Then they got away with the absconding with 4 months of the revenue that they never passed on to the Federal Government and we never said anything. We are right now financing 21 percent of FAA and the air traffic control system out of the general treasury. And some little guy from Oregon who is making $7 an hour, you are going to ask him to pay that security fee. He never gets on a plane, he is probably making minimum wage and is going to now pay to underwrite a failed system because the airlines will not step forward. I even offered them a half a billion. They promised me that they would pay us a billion dollars when we assumed this responsibility. Last year they paid us $315 million, $700 hundred million short. Shame on them. Shame on them for even pushing this amendment. This is a disgrace. We should be putting in place the best equipment to do away with the system that has failed. This says it failed. I challenge every Member to go and read those classified reports. We are not playing games here; we are dealing with the safety, security, and the economic future of this Nation. So I urge the defeat of this amendment. I urge the reform of TSA that does not work, that costs us a lot of money; and those that use it should pay for it, not some poor guy from Oregon or Florida that is getting left holding the bag and paying the bill. The user pays. That is what we do here. We are down now and we are subsidizing the expenses of FAA and air traffic control by half a billion dollars a year because the 7.5 cent excise tax on the tickets does not raise enough money. So it is coming out of the pockets of people who do not even fly. This is a user-based system. Let us fix this system. Correct this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am pleased to speak before the House and also for the record on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the rule, but I think it is very important that at this juncture in proceeding with this important Homeland Security authorization that some things are said and also some items for the record are noted. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), who I have had the pleasure to work with from the other side of the aisle, crafted legislation which was incorporated into the intelligence reform bills. One of the titles of that bill that the President signed, dealing with the threat and the direction of Congress towards trying to deal with the problem of MANPADS, and that is shoulder-launch missiles, and the threat that they posed. One of the things that we did was to try to move that project forward. Sometimes in homeland security we spend a lot of money and we do not get a great deal of results. I view, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation, one of the greatest threats that we face other than a suicide bomber or several of them getting on planes, which they can easily do in our flawed system today, I view the second greatest threat as shoulder-launch missiles. With the conflict in the world, particularly in the Middle East, thousands of these shoulder-launched missiles have gone on the market. So we worked to, one, curtail the number of shoulder-launched missiles; two, encourage international treaties, develop ground-based systems, and this bill does something towards that. We started a program several years ago when we saw this threat and we tried to do our best to move forward development of a commercial shoulder-launched missile. This bill unfortunately limits the amount of money that can be spent on moving that program forward. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) had an amendment that was not included here that would relieve that restriction. Yesterday we were wise in appropriating what the administration requested for funding the program, but this authorization is lacking. I would have preferred to have his amendment in here. My purpose for being here on May 18, 2005 is to remind us that they missed in Kenya an Israeli plane in November 2002 with many passengers. They missed in Iraq in 2003 a DHL plane that also could have been taken down by shoulder-launched missiles. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have been very fortunate so far and we cannot be remiss in making available the best technology to protect the traveling public. Not that we have to hang one of these on every commercial aircraft, but we will be remiss if we do not carry this program that has already started forward. If we miss a lick here, it will be much to our regret. I regret that the gentleman from New York's amendment was not included in this. I will support this. I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and others as they take on the responsibility of protecting not only the homeland but the flying public.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman, and in spite of the incident that we had last week, and that was not a planned scheduled arrival, it was a departure from what we are talking about and properly opening National Airport to general aviation, I think, again working together, that we can find a plan that will work and not let the terrorists intimidate us in operating our Nation's capital airport. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to express my gratitude to the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who has done such a great job on this H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. As you know, I had planned to raise a point of order on section 524, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a security plan to permit general aviation at Ronald Reagan National Airport as legislating on an appropriations bill. However, I did not do that because I think we share the same intent. And the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has put a provision here in section 524 that does require a plan. However, I think the chairman is aware and realizes that the committee bill passed; that is, the Committee on Transportation bill. In our Subcommittee on Aviation's work done on it, H.R. 1496 has even tougher language directing the opening of Ronald Reagan National Airport. That is our intent, and working with the appropriators, I believe that it will be your intent to also include a strong provision and directive provision in conference, or as this bill proceeds.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The gentleman from Texas, I am sure, has an excellent intention and is interested in helping the airlines. Some of them are struggling, and we do need to help the airlines; but sometimes the airlines do not even help themselves. I would rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There is probably no economic activity that we support in this country more than our commercial airlines. The chairman has correctly pointed out, 4.5, almost $6 billion in this legislation is for passenger screening, of which we only collect less than half of that. We have a $2 billion-plus shortage that the general taxpayer is paying. If this amendment was crafted so that we charged the airlines for putting the air marshal on, I might agree with my colleague because we have a shortfall. I also stated earlier, the airlines came before the Subcommittee on Aviation when we crafted the TSA bill and pledged to pay it $1 billion. That is what they said they would pay if we took away from the airlines, who had that responsibility, the responsibility for passenger screening. Do my colleagues know what they paid last year? Let me repeat it again, $315 million, a shortfall of almost $700 million. So I will be darned if I am going to stand here and support an amendment that would in any way reimburse them for the great expenses. Look at the event of last week. Not only do we have the apparent expenses; we spent some $20 billion on passenger screening on a system that I have great questions about, but we have also spent billions of dollars in training the pilots to be armed. I supported that program, I promoted that program; but most of those pilots do not go at airline expense. They go at their own expense, spend a week of their time. They are not reimbursed; and now we will have more pilots armed on our aircraft this year than we will have air marshals. They are not getting a darn penny for reimbursement. So, again, I think we have gone over backwards. We spent $5 billion we appropriated for reimbursements for damages directly related to the events of September 11 to our major airlines. We gave them another $3 billion. Some of that they deserve; some of that they did not deserve in reimbursement. Then we set up a $10 billion loan guarantee fund, of which they only used about $2 billion; but we have done everything, and now they refuse to do anything to help us. They cannot even collect an additional fee. They are collecting $2.50. I said if we put in a high-tech system, that would double the security fee but get rid of half of the screeners in 3 years, and allow them to keep all $300 million they are now paying and up to a half a billion dollars. They cannot even do the math to keep that money. So I will be darned if I will get up and support giving them one more penny when they will not pay their own fair share. So I think the amendment is well intended. I salute the gentleman for trying to help the aviation industry. I will join with him, but this is not the vehicle; and it is not the reimbursement that we should be providing in this appropriations measure.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the authorizing Committee on Homeland Security; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, for working out what I consider to be a good agreement to leave in this bill the $110 million that the administration has requested for continuing both the development and deployment of MANPADs, shoulder-launched missile defense system for our commercial aircraft. I know border protection is a very popular agenda item on the populace front, but I think folks send us to Congress not only to protect our borders and deal with the populace issues in putting resources where public opinion and popular opinion would have those dollars, but also to look at the risks and the threat. Today, we face the threat of someone walking through 1950 metal detector technology at our airports which we see across the country, metal detectors, and strapping explosives to their body and not being able to detect explosives. That is our number one threat right now is suicide bombers. In my opinion, the second greatest threat is a shoulder-launched missile. Now, folks, we have been very fortunate to date in Kenya and Saudi Arabia and Iraq that we have not had a commercial airline with passengers taken down. I think our luck is about to run out, and it is important that we move forward. Sometimes the administration, that is my administration, has not done everything right, but this is one of the few programs I may say in homeland security that was well thought-out, well-developed, and now the next part is deploying that technology. If, in fact, there is money left over and it is not expended in the program, and that would be my hope, I would support every additional dollar to go towards those priorities this subcommittee has developed for securing our borders. But I do want to thank everyone for reaching this agreement; hopefully, moving forward in the conference committee, and making certain that we have the resources to protect us, again, against what I consider is our second greatest danger, and that is the danger of a shoulder-launched missile taking down a commercial aircraft. We have to have a system available to protect our aircraft.

Mr. MICA. Except for too much rigmarole, I think that we are on the same page. Again I thank you for your cooperation and your leadership, and together I think we will have a chance to open with a sensible, safe, secure plan to general aviation our Nation's capital airport. Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Poe

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the chairman and ranking member on a very difficult task. I regret that on this particular language, as you may know, the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure want to fund even more than the 75 percent that was proposed in this particular provision of in-line systems. Again, it was necessary to raise a point of order here. I just want to comment briefly, though, about what we are doing here and what we are not doing here. This section appropriates about $4.6 billion to continue the passenger screening and checked baggage screening system that we have. This, unfortunately, is funded through a passenger tax. It is now $2.50 and $5 maximum for a one-way ticket. It is a fee to pay the security fee. Members and the public should be aware that right now we are running about a $2 billion shortfall. We assumed this responsibility from the airlines. In addition, the airlines had promised and testified before us that they were paying about a billion dollars and would pay a billion dollars each year if we assumed this responsibility. They have reneged in that responsibility; and last year they paid us $315 million, short some $700 million. The administration proposed increasing this fee by $3. I proposed increasing it by $2.50 and change this system from a heavy personnel system, in fact, some 45,000 people, an army of TSA personnel which according to the Inspector General and according to the GAO do not perform very well because they do not have the technology. I propose to impose this fee for a 3-year period and at that point to eliminate the tax and also assist the airlines in the meantime with some of their security finance responsibilities. Right now that has been rejected, both the fee to pay for this by the administration and my proposal. What it does is it leaves us at risk. We have a huge army doing a very poor job because they do not have a high-tech system. That is going to cost money, that money is not in the bill, and I am sad that we are going to pass this legislation. I raise this because I still want this to be a conferenceable item because we must protect the people of this country and the flying public, and we are not doing so with this provision, and we are not financing it adequately with this provision.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a point of order against page 17 beginning with the colon on line 2 through ``intent'' on line 11. This proviso 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. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Dr. Peggy Chabrian, who is President and Founder of Women in Aviation, International. The organization was incorporated in 1994 following the success of the annual International Women in Aviation Conference conducted in 1990. With Peggy Chabrian commitment the conference began with 150 participants in 1990 and today that organization has grown to more than 3,000 attendees. Women in Aviation International now represents over 7,000 women and men from all segments of the aviation industry including general, corporate, commercial and military. Women in Aviation International is the premier organization in recognizing women's accomplishments in aviation. They not only highlight accomplishments by women but also provide a substantial number of educational scholarships and aviation vocational opportunities for women. A long-time aviation enthusiast and professional aviation educator. Dr. Chabrian is a commercial/instrument multi-engine pilot and flight instructor who has been flying for over 20 years. Most recently she added helicopter and seaplane ratings to her flight qualifications. Dr. Chabrian has held many top positions in aviation education including her tenure at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and her Chair of the aviation department at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Chabrian was the second woman to ever hold the position of dean of an engineering school in the United States. She is currently also the publisher of Aviation for Women magazine. The recipient of numerous aviation and education awards, Dr. Chabrian has received the FAA Administrator's Award for Excellence in Aviation Education and the Civic Award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. She has been inducted into the Crown Circle of the National Congress on Aviation and Space Education. In December 2001 she received the Vision Award from Business and Commercial Aviation magazine. Dr. Chabrian is active in numerous aviation organizations and serves as a member of several boards including the Centennial of Flight Advisory Board, the Experimental Aircraft Association Foundation and the Museum of Aviation. She is the past president and board member of the University Aviation Association. I know that other Members of Congress join me in congratulating Peggy Chabrian on her untiring efforts in promoting and recognizing women in aviation.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcall 90. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this measure.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, along with my fellow Members of Congress, it is my honor to pay tribute to my friend and former colleague, Tillie Fowler. I extend my very deepest sympathy to Tillie's husband, Buck, to her daughters, Tillie and Elizabeth, and to Tillie's family on the great personal loss of their loved one. It was my privilege to call Tillie Fowler my colleague in Congress and know her as a friend. Tillie always had her priorities in order. I always recall her first concern in all matters was for Buck, her husband, and her daughters. Tillie as I knew her also had a great love of our country. She ran for office to make her community, our State of Florida and our nation a better place for all. And she never stopped or hesitated in that effort. Because of the public service of Tillie Fowler, many lives in the Jacksonville area and across our great land have been changed. Tillie and I were elected to Congress together in 1992. With Tillie's leadership the Congress was reformed, people who only had welfare as a choice had their lives changed and our nation's military found a new, strong advocate at their side. Many lives have been affected by the efforts and determination of Tillie Fowler. It was my honor to serve with her for eight years and share borders of our Congressional Districts over the years, It was my honor to have her at my side during congressional redistricting in 2002, when I inherited a large portion of her old district and faced a formidable reelection challenge. Her support and friendship will always have a fond place in my heart and memories. So, like many, I have lost a great friend. Unfortunately our nation has lost a great leader and patriot. We will all miss Tillie. But each day now without her, we can celebrate her life and better appreciate her many contributions that helped to make our country a better America for all.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding me this time and for the opportunity to address probably one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered by this Congress, and that is our Federal policy in projects for funding transportation throughout our Nation. Mr. Chairman, back in the 1950s, I believe it was in 1954, President Eisenhower sent Richard Nixon to Lake George, New York, for the National Governors Conference. And at that conference, Vice President Nixon proposed to the governors basically a $1 trillion interstate program, and that was when the Federal budget was somewhere in the $80 billion range. I wish that we were here today talking about a $1 trillion funding project to improve the infrastructure of our Nation. If we look across the country, it certainly could be justified. Just in my district in Florida, from Orlando to Jacksonville, we probably have $4 billion or $5 billion in immediate project needs, and that just scratches the surface. I know traffic congestion is a problem across the Nation. I compliment the chairman. He has had to deal with the White House, he has had to deal with varied interests. I compliment the ranking member. He has also had to deal with the fiscal constraints that we see ourselves under at this time and try to come up with a reasonable solution to funding our Nation's highway. So I thank everyone for getting us to this stage. Now, I have not made up my mind whether I will vote for or against the final transportation and highway funding formula that we see. I say I have not made up my mind, I do support the proposal as it is brought forth here in the House today. I support it because it represents a $48.6 billion increase. That is a 27 percent increase over TEA-21, its predecessor authorizing legislation. I support this legislation today because the House passed a $275 billion bill, and this represents $284 billion additional spending that has been agreed upon by the White House and other participants, and also a $299 billion, almost $300 billion with contract authority piece of legislation, which is more than what we had last year. In fact, it is $9 billion more for highway funds over what we voted on last year in the House of Representatives. However, and here is a caveat, I still am not certain whether this is fair for Florida as a donor State, a donor State which in committee we heard that Florida received, for every dollar that it sent into the trust fund some years ago, 58 cents in return. We have gone to 79 cents. We are now somewhere around 86 cents, that is, for every dollar we send here, we get back 86 cents. I do not know today, I do not know at this hour, and I do not when we pass the final bill what our net rate of return is. That is what I will have my eye on the ball for. And I think that is what all of the donor States ask for. And we do not ask for anything that we are not entitled to. In fact, we would very much like to have 95 cents come back as a minimum. We will probably not get that. But all we ask for is fairness in this process. I know at this time, and I have not seen all of the details of the manager's amendment, that there will be carved out projects of national significance; and I do support this. But what we ask for is fairness, fairness to Florida, fairness to Illinois, fairness to Alaska, fairness to all of the States in the Union, and all of those who will benefit by this bill. So we are going to try to support this bill. We had to sort of hold our nose and vote for the previous bill which was not as good as this piece of legislation that comes before us today But we, the donor States, working with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and others from across the Nation that are also donors to this fund, want to see fairness in the final bill. So it is in everyone's interest that we move this bill now forward to conference committee. So I urge my colleagues to look very closely at the provisions of the manager's amendment and how it affects each of their individual States. I urge you to support this legislation and that we pass this bill and move it on to conference.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcall 52. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on this measure.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Robert Warren Pearce in honor of his service to our country during World War II. Mr. Pearce was born in Terra Haute, Indiana, on November 20, 1921, as the younger of two sons of Mr. Owen Pearce, who is the son of immigrants from Wiesbaden, Germany. At the age of 21, Mr. Pearce resigned from his duties on RDX and bomb development for Dupont and enlisted in the Air Force in 1942. He began cadet training in San Antonio, Texas; and rose to the rank of a First Lieutenant bombardier and gunnery officer on a B-17 in the 452nd Bomber Group of the 8th Air Force, stationed near Attleboro, England. During World War II, he flew 25 missions as a Deputy Lead that involved the bombing of Wiesbaden, Germany, and food drops over Holland. His squadron also destroyed submarine pens, ammunition factories, and railroad marshalling yards in Berlin. When his bomber crew returned to the United States, Mr. Pearce stayed on in England to teach X Box Navigation and flew additional missions with a new crew. After an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army Air Corps, Mr. Pearce joined the Reserves where he served until 1957. He married Mary Jane Powers and moved to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where he lived for 48 years; and as a successful independent businessman, Robert and Mary Jane Powers raised four sons who shared pride in their father's service to our Nation. Mr. Pearce now resides in Ormond Beach, where he currently courageously battles Parkinson's disease. Mr. Speaker, because of Mr. Pearce's dedication to our country, I want to take this opportunity to recognize his war service, and ask all Members of the House to join me in celebrating the life and service of a wonderful husband, father and American.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcall vote No. 25. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this measure.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcall 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this measure.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on October 30, a dedication ceremony was conducted in Orlando, Florida in honor of Corporal Larry E. Smedley at the Orange County Courthouse Plaza. Corporal Smedley who died in combat in Vietnam in December 1967 is Orlando's only recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor from that conflict. The ceremony conducted in our community was to commemorate the naming of a section of our Interstate 4 highway from Colonial Drive to State Road 436 in memory of this Central Florida hero. That section of our major thoroughfare was designated by an act of the Florida Legislature the ``Corporal Larry E. Smedley Medal of Honor Highway.'' It was my privilege to attend that ceremony and meet Corporal Smedley's mother Mary Smedley Smith, from Virginia Beach, his brother, Russell Smedley, from Orlando, Florida, and his sister, Valerie Smedley, from Orlando, Florida. I know I join all those in attendance at that ceremony and countless Americans who appreciate Corporal Smedley's heroism and his family's incredible sacrifice to our nation. It is my honor to include in the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives the outstanding and heartfelt remarks from The Honorable Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs delivered at the dedication ceremony. Good morning. It has been said that ``True heroism is remarkably sober . . . It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.'' History is defined by critical moments . . . sobering moments, costly moments . . . moments that are turning points in time. The United States of America has existed for less than three centuries. And throughout our history, we have been tested, time and again, by defining moments of conflict. Vietnam was one of those moments. The men who fought there were young and untested. Citizen- soldiers from all walks of life . . . native-born and immigrants. From cities large and small . . . and from towns, villages, and farms. Yet they were bound together in a brotherhood whose lodestar continues to shine bright on an immutable truth given poetic definition by President Abraham Lincoln. ``Our reliance'' he said, ``is in the love of liberty. . . [and] in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere.'' And so the young Americans of more than three decades past fought with a gritty sense of purpose . . . fortitude . . . and, many times, sheer obstinacy. They were tested in the raging fires of adversity at Ia Drang . . . Hue . . . Khe Sanh . . . Pleiku . . . and in a thousand clashes and skirmishes remembered, now, only by those who fought them. Those battles, known and unknown, prove one thing--there is the possibility for triumph . . . dignity . . . and great honor in even the most difficult, the most trying of circumstances. Especially when these qualities are rooted in men dedicated to each other and to the principle--not the objective--for which they fight. Men descendent of a common creed--One Nation, under God . . . and guardian of a common trust--Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Men like Corporal Larry E. Smedley, United States Marine Corps, who served America and served others in the highest tradition of America's greatest patriots . . . and who paid the cost of that selfless service with the coin of incredible sacrifice. The true mettle of those who love Liberty is tested in moments such as the December night in 1967 when heroism emerged in the jungles of Quang Nam Province . . . heroism larger than life itself . . . full with its attendant valor, purpose, and sacrifice. Corporal Smedley's awe-inspiring bravery is the stuff of American legend. In him we see the mighty strengths and quiet virtues of the American spirit. In him we see the outward courage and inner character of the American soldier . . . sailor. . . airman . . . Marine . . . and Coastguardsman. In him we see the very best of what it means to be an American. Though we are poorer that he was taken from us, we are richer for what he so selflessly gave us. By his devotion to country and to his comrades on that night so long ago, Larry Smedley joined the revered ranks of America's heroes from Valley Forge . . . Fredericksburg . . . Belleau Wood . . . Normandy . . . and the Chosin. Together, they wrote boldly . . . largely . . . and indelibly . . . across our great National chronicle of military history. For the story of America is the story of America's defenders . . . in war and in peace . . . at home and abroad. A story whose chapters speak eloquently of Duty, Honor, and Sacrifice. A story whose words and phrases recount unbreakable bonds of camaraderie forged in service to country. Whose words speak softly of beloved family and friends, and lives forever changed by the wounds of war . . . and whisper of faithful comrades forever young, cut down in life's prime. It is the story of Corporal Larry E. Smedley, United States Marine Corps. A hero who served his country . . . who served others . . . and who stands tall in the most honored pantheon of American patriots. By today's ceremony, the spirit [of] liberty that Lincoln extolled lives here, among Central Florida's towns, fields and groves so familiar to Larry Smedley, the young boy. And by this dedication, the indomitable spirit of Larry E. Smedley, the young Marine, lives here in perpetuity . . . amid the expanse of the ribbon of highway stretching to the unbroken horizon of America's Sunshine State. On this day of dedication . . . at this time of remembrance and reflection . . . we honor great deeds . . . great achievement . . . and great personal fortitude. We honor the memory of an ordinary American who served America in the most extraordinary way. As one who, like Larry, served in the Republic of Vietnam, I struggle today to find words that can give proper honor to the painfully short life of my brother-in-arms, Corporal Larry Smedley . . . knowing full well that words alone will never be enough. And so, with your indulgence, let me close with the poignant words of the English poet, Laurence Binyon, whose poem ``For the Fallen,'' was written in honor of England's World War I dead. I read from it today in memory of America's fallen hero--Corporal Larry E. Smedley: They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning We will remember them. May God always bless America and the sons and daughters who so courageously defend her.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to know Charles W. Cherry, Sr., a community leader and distinguished citizen of Florida's 7th Congressional District. I join many others from across the country in mourning the loss of this outstanding American. His passing is a significant loss to the City of Daytona Beach and to the State of Florida. Charles arrived in Daytona Beach in 1952 during the height of segregation. As a civil rights activist in the 1960's and 1970's, he helped organize bus boycotts, fought for better wages at area hospitals, and advocated for better representation for the minority community in Daytona Beach. He became president of the Volusia County- Daytona Beach Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, later becoming president of the state branch and a member of the national board of directors. In 1978, Charles founded the Daytona Times, a newspaper that has grown into a media company covering Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, with two newspapers and 11 radio stations. He was elected to the Daytona Beach City Commission in 1995, where he served five consecutive terms. As a commissioner, Charles was a strong supporter for new infrastructure and improved city services in black neighborhoods. Charles W. Cherry, Sr. worked during his life fighting for the principles of equality, justice and opportunity. The City of Daytona Beach has lost a great champion for our community. I will always treasure his public service, his friendship and the example his life has set for so many. My deepest sympathy is extended to his wife Julia T. Cherry, his son Charles W. Cherry, Jr., his family and his friends.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Burr, Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Coble join me in recognizing December 13, 2004 as the 50th Anniversary of Sonny's Grill in Blowing Rock, North Carolina. Half a century ago, on December 13, 1954, the late Sonny Klutz opened the door for a small-town eatery on Blowing Rock's Main Street, For five decades that three table, eight stool restaurant has been the eating and meeting place for locals, tourists and after school children. Only the sweet potato pancakes, ham or sausage biscuits, livermush, hamburger and other variety of country cooking surpass the wonderful mixture of Sonny's Grill's customers and conversations. With a storefront suspended in time, whatever Sonny's lacks in decor is made up in the warmth of easygoing folks who work and dine there. On the edge of the magnificent Blue Ridge Mountains, in the center of a beautiful small town, Blowing Rock, Sonny's Grill, and the good fellowship it has provided for half a century, is at the heart of what makes America great. Congratulations to Sonny Klutz's widow, Mrs. Lavaughn Klutz, manager Robert Cheves and all the wonderful staff and patrons of Sonny's Grill on this special occasion.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered makes several non-controversial, but important changes: First, it prevents a repeat of the ``Cat Stevens'' incident. On September 21st, Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, was allowed to board United Flight 919 from London to Washington, DC. The plane was hundreds of miles over the Atlantic before it was discovered that Mr. Islam was on the terrorist watchlist. Fortunately, the plane was diverted to Maine without incident. That plane should never have left the ground with Mr. Islam on board. My amendment requires DHS to compare the names of international passengers to the terrorist watch-lists prior to the flight's departure, and it ensures that future flights will not take off with known terrorists on board. Secondly, my amendment requires TSA to establish an appeal process for passengers wrongly placed on terror watchlists. It also establishes a process for DHS to track passengers erroneously flagged under the Department's new pre-screening system. The watchlists are incredibly important tools, but they are far from perfect. Last week, I learned that several members of Congress, including the Chairman of the Transportation Committee, have been prevented from boarding airliners because they shared the first and last name of someone on the watchlist. This provision will ensure that they and others are not unnecessarily delayed on future flights. Lastly, this amendment directs the Department of Homeland Security to take all necessary actions to expedite the installation and use of advanced in-line baggage-screening equipment at commercial airports. I am disappointed that language to provide innovative non-Federal financing for these systems was not included in H.R. 10 due to shortsighted CBO scorekeeping. However, I do believe the Administration has the authority to pursue this approach, and hopefully, this section will encourage them to do so. We worked closely with members on both sides of the aisle to develop this amendment. A similar amendment passed the Transportation Committee unanimously last week and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.