John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), one of the distinguished members of our subcommittee.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close the debate on the conference report on H.R. 2115. Mr. Speaker, indeed, this legislation is important to the success of aviation in this country. This particular industry is one of the great job creators, and no nation relies on safe and independent operation of aircraft more than the United States. I disagree on the point that has been raised here in closing. We do not change in any way the current status of contract towers. We do not mention privatization. We have taken out some 69 airports that were identified in the previous conference report. I believe that this bill strikes many carefully proposed compromises that address the many needs of our aviation system while providing for its future. I believe that this will also be a boon to many of our communities, to restore jobs, to provide economic opportunity in an industry that has been hard hit by the effects of September 11. So we have an opportunity to help small communities. We have an opportunity to continue a safe and cost-effective system. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members on the other side of the aisle for their cooperation. I know that there is one issue in particular that has brought us apart, but eventually it would lead to this debate and to this day. I think this has been a healthy debate, and I think that will be resolved by the vote that is to take place. The U.S. aviation industry is the strongest in the world, and I am committed to keeping it that way. H.R. 2115 and this conference report provide stability and funding to ensure that our Nation will continue to lead. I urge all Members to put aside partisan politics and to vote to pass this conference report for H.R. 2115. Again, I thank my colleagues and the staff for their fine work, and especially the Members of the minority.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I do. Mr. Speaker, the House, as I recall, just passed on a vote of 220 to 199 a rule by which this legislation would be considered before the House of Representatives. In that rule, there was clearly a provision that waived all points of order, which also would negate the previous standing rule of the House for specific meeting. I might say also, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the rule I did cite the sequence of events in which the conference did meet and in which full participation was permitted, and specifically cited a rule on the particular issue that has raised so much controversy here. We did acquiesce to the minority's request to pull that provision, and that was the reason it was handled in that fashion. So, again, based on the passage of the rule, the provisions of the rule and the adoption of the rule subsequently by the House of Representatives, I think that you will find the gentleman's point of order out of order.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 422, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, again I urge my colleagues to pass the rule. We have tried to be fair in this process. I have tried to be fair. There is one issue. I mean we can talk about a host of other issues, and in this system of 435 Members, I have over 40 Members on the subcommittee. There are over 70 on the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We all know that we all do not get all of our ways. We heard the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) give a very eloquent reminder of her contributions and our working together. This bill does represent 99.9 percent of us working together to solve issues and move our aviation industry forward. It does boil down to, unfortunately, this one issue that has divided us. We have acquiesced to the other side. We did put in 69 towers out of the 71 towers identified. The two from Alaska, and please do not pick on my chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), he represents an area that is just unbelievable. You have to go see Alaska to believe it. It takes 3\1/2\ hours by jet from one end of the State to the other. And the two towers that were named in this report, first of all, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has probably more contract towers than any 10 States put together, but the two that were mentioned in this, one is being converted to a capstone, that is the Juneau, Alaska, tower; and the other one, if you go and look at the Anchorage tower, it is quite unique. It has a combination of military, private sector, and FAA operations. So they really do not fit into this program. And that is why that was exempted. But what we have done here is we have taken out all 69. Now, yes, I offered if anyone wanted to read this report that says that a contract tower which is FAA supervised and privately managed is 4\1/2\ times safer, really it has 4\1/2\ times less error than an all- FAA tower and it costs less. Heaven forbid in Congress we should deal with saving the taxpayer money and have something that is safer and costs less, like this report identifies. I suggested we give the other side the opportunity, but they do not want to do that. I said I will give that opportunity. If people want to do that, fine. The conference participants really have decided what the issue was. There is one issue. Here is the record. So it has, in fact, boiled down to that. We have taken out the 69 towers from any potential of privatization. There is no mention of privatization in this bill. We gave them basically what they want, and they are still not happy. So, again, it boils down to a vote. We have to vote on this measure. Again, the question of the executive order, President Clinton, for 7 years and 9 months practically, had the ability to look at any of these towers. He made some of them private with contract arrangements, and then he changed it. We know why he changed it, a huge amount of money, look at the record, you see what happens in campaigns and elections; and this President changed it back to where it was where President Clinton had it. And this is the safest system. We have 219 contract towers in the United States. Almost half of the towers in the United States are contract towers, and they are safe. And they also helped in taking down the planes safely on September 11. So do not bash the current system. That is what we are asking for, plus all the good things that we have worked together on to make this a better piece of legislation for our country and our American aviation system.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to some of the points that have been raised on this particular rule. Having participated in the development of this legislation on this conference report, I am familiar with some of the details that I think we should, again, separate fact from fiction. First of all, the conference did meet. I have a copy of the transcript of the conference. Let me say, first of all, in the development of the bill, I have heard comments about this not being a bipartisan effort. I can say that I have been in the Congress for 11 years. And I was in the minority, and I saw how things operated in an oppressed fashion, being part of the minority I said that would never happen when I was given the opportunity to be in a leadership position. So I conducted more hearings on the reauthorization of AIR-21, FAA reauthorization, than we did on AIR-21's original hearings. And I have a list of all of the hearings that we conducted. I went into the home district of the ranking member and conducted a hearing. I can tell you with every single issue in this piece of legislation, the minority was consulted. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), just got up and told you that much of this legislation, in fact, is the work product of the minority. Opportunities I could not have dreamed of when I was in the minority. So to say that somehow this has been unfairly conducted, or some opportunity not given, is not correct. It is not factual. Then we get to the point of the conference. A conference was held and the major issue, there has only been one point of contention on this legislation from the beginning. That is the question of the contract towers. We held a hearing and we had an actual vote on the issue. Here is the vote. Here is the transcript. Let me read: ``Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized for the purpose of a motion, I move to adopt the language I have referenced with respect to the language of air traffic control privatization and the air traffic control tower language.'' There was a vote and they lost. We put in the provision 69 towers. It was done in an open meeting. They were given an opportunity for a vote. This is the vote. Mr. Speaker at this point I will insert this into the Record. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized for the purpose of a motion, I move to adopt the language I have referenced with respect to the language on air traffic control privatization and the air traffic control tower language. Mr. Young. On the House side, all in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, signify by saying no. The noes have it. So this was done in fairness. Now, I do not remember too many conference reports that have been filed and been out there. We filed this the July 24. The conference has been out there. And we would have taken this up the week that we left, but we did not have time on the floor. And in the meantime, NATCA has spent, I am told, I do not know if this is accurate, but I am told $6 to $7 million in a campaign of disinformation to take this provision out. Now, what we have done is we won in an open conference, and now we have recommitted the bill and we have agreed to take out the objectionable provision. So we lost. We gave again to the side to take out the provision, and they still are not happy. They say they are not being treated fairly. We had a vote, we had an open conference, and we have taken out the issue of contention. All the other issues, every issue, was debated, every issue was discussed in hearings. And I have copies of all the hearings. I would be glad to have them made part of the Record. So, again, the question of unfairness is unfair. Let me say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who just spoke, and I have the greatest respect for the gentleman, the planes that landed September 11 that the FAA brought down, half the towers in the country, almost half the towers in the country, 219 are contract towers. They are supervised by the Federal Aviation Administration. They are managed by private contractors. So on September 11, those people performed well. The issue of the 69 towers, the 69 towers we did not pick out of the vacuum, out of the sky to put in the bill to look at for possible conversion to contract towers. Those FAA towers were examined in the year 2000 by the Inspector General. Not by the CBO, not by some partisan group, but by the Inspector General. The Inspector General looked at those towers. He compared them in 2000 and found that the all FAA towers had 2.5 times more safety errors than their counterparts, the contract towers. And the cost was substantially more. This did not satisfy the union, so they asked for another restudy. So we asked for a restudy requested by NATCA. They reviewed it in 2002 and 2003. Here is the report. In the report they said you did not do the right comparison. You have to compare the flights, the number of flights, hours of operation. So they did that. And they just completed that. You know what? An even more exact comparison found, that there is five times the error rate in the FAA towers. So they are less safe. And they cost, look at it, the report, an average of 12 of them, $917,000 more to run. So, we have taken out the provision that was objectionable to the other side, and they still are not happy. This reminds me of that song, the Hokie Pokie: You put your right foot in. What else can we do? So we are here today, folks, to stop the Hokie Pokie. This is very serious because our aviation system depends on it. Our improvements of our airports depend on it, and that is in this legislation. The security improvements depend on it, and many of our airports are lacking those security improvements. They are being held up because this bill is not passing. Essential air service to our small and rural communities, never before have we produced a piece of legislation that will do more to expand air service with an aviation system that now has been under such duress that we have nursed it back. This will do more of the job to create employments and opportunities for all Americans. So the argument that we have not given a fair opportunity to the other side is bogus. The argument that is trying to be posed here today that we somehow did something in the dark, without consultation, here is the record. This is the record. We have been fair. We have been open. We have even acquiesced to their number one demand and to what the union has spent $7 million on in an unprecedented campaign of lies and distortion and misinformation, so we can move this legislation forward, so we can help our ailing aviation industry.

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 the conference report for H.R. 2115.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chair of the committee, and also the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the subcommittee chair, and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for their leadership and the bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle for this much-needed legislation. I think that it is very appropriate that we follow the legislation that was just handled to take care of the medical concerns and need of our veterans by also taking care of their last wishes. Florida is so privileged to have two of the six new cemeteries that will be dedicated as national veterans cemeteries under this legislation, and what I was told by staff is that the basis of the designations is not done just by political power, but by actual need. And certainly Florida, whether it is south, central or northeast, is the recipient of so many of those men and women who served our Nation and have chosen to retire, to work and to live out their final days in our great State. So this is the very least that we can do. We have over 1,000 veterans dying across the land every day, World War II veterans and others, and again, many of them coming to Florida. As we adjust our medical needs and health care services to our veterans, it is also appropriate that we make this final adjustment that they have a decent burial place in our State where they have chosen to live, work and also to retire. I thank my colleagues for their leadership, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; but I will close, hopefully, for our side and answer that question at that time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I am pleased to address some of the issues relating to this motion to recommit. First of all, I do support the motion to recommit the FAA reauthorization legislation and urge those on both sides of the aisle for this recommittal. To answer the gentleman from Massachusetts' question to me previously about commitments that I would make as to what would be in and what would be out of the final legislation and conference report that comes out, I can make no guarantee tonight. I am but one member of the conference committee, even though I chair the Subcommittee on Aviation and am willing to work with the other side. But let me set some facts straight tonight as we conclude the debate on the motion to recommit. First of all, my colleagues heard the ranking member of the full committee just cite that air traffic control is an inherently governmental function and that somehow this has been politicized by our side of the aisle. Nothing, I say to my colleagues, could be further from the truth. In fact, for 7\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration, there was no inherently governmental label placed on FAA air traffic control. That was done in the last waning months of the Clinton administration as a bone to some of those in organized labor. But prior to that, there was no inherently governmental label. President Bush did remove that when he came into office and has asked for the option to look at which tower should be privatized or which should be contract towers and which should be fully FAA-operated towers. The fact is, almost half, 219, of our towers today are contract towers. They are run by the FAA, but managed by a private company. The fact is, on September 11, half of the towers in this country that were contract towers, so-called privatized towers, also brought down the planes safely on September 11. The fact is, the President wanted the ability to look at every tower that is fully FAA-staffed and decide which should be fully FAA-staffed and which should be contract. We decided in this report, not just by picking towers at random, but by taking a report that was first done in the year 2000 by the Inspector General who looked at some 71 FAA, fully FAA-run towers. He looked at all 71 of them. And he came back and he said, based on first safety and secondly on cost, these are towers that should be looked at for becoming contract towers. Then, not only in the year 2000 did he look at it, but NATCA, the union that runs air traffic control, asked for a relook and disputed the cost figures. So we asked for a relook. And in the year 2002, he conducted a relook; and we just got that report. It showed that the contract towers, in fact, when compared to the fully FAA towers, had a 2\1/2\ times better safety rate in the year 2000; and then the relook, I have a copy here, says 4\1/2\ times safer with a contract tower than a fully FAA; that is on the basis of safety. Then just turning to the next page and looking at cost, the cost here, our analysis showed that the 12 contract towers on average cost about $917,000 less to operate. So on the basis of safety and cost, it was safer to have contract towers. And they compared the 2000 study and the 2002 study which we just got in 2003, and both confirmed this. But a campaign of disinformation to Members in Congress, to the public, and to everyone who has had the opportunity to see it, a campaign of disinformation to the tune of $6 million has tried to say just the opposite of what the facts are. Now, these, I say to my colleagues, are the facts. So we will take this back to conference, and we will revisit this issue. Anyone who would like, we will make a copy of this report available. But this campaign of disinformation is now forcing us to go back to conference. I make no guarantees as to what will come out of that conference. None of these provisions or the 69 towers that we have included were secretly written provisions. That provision was voted on in open conference and the other side lost in this issue. So these are the facts that we deal with. Finally, the cargo extension provision in Alaska, I hope we do not change that. Because if you want to see more jobs lost in the United States, if you want to see a transportation cargo hub moved from Alaska to Canada, go ahead and change this provision. And you will put thousands of people out of work and move cargo to another country. Try that. See how that works. Finally, the local share match, we heard the plea of the rural communities. The administration wanted a match. We eliminated all the match except in 10 demo essential air service locations. And even with those 10 demos, we have allowed for a waiver. I hope we keep that provision that that allows that waiver and allows essential service. Those are the facts. We can deal with fantasy, or we can deal with a multimillion dollar disinformation campaign. I urge the recommittal of this legislation, and I ask that you fasten your seat belts and put your tray tables in an upright and locked position and get ready for a ride to conference.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I join my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, in recognizing the passing of one of our former colleagues of the House of Representatives, William C. Cramer. Bill Cramer served in this Chamber as a representative from Florida's west coast from 1955 to 1970. Over the past decades, Congressman Cramer was more than a former colleague to me. I affectionately referred to him as my old boss for I had the great honor and privilege also to work with him, and I worked as a campaign aid in his bid for the United States Senate in 1970. Bill Cramer was a pioneer for the Republican party. He was a Florida State legislator and the first GOP Member from the State of Florida since the post-Civil War reconstruction era. Not only was he one of the true contemporary founders of Florida's Republican majority, Bill Cramer served initially as a minority of one, our State's only GOP Member in Congress in 1955. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Cramer rose to leadership positions in both the Public Works Committee and also the House GOP conference with his distinguished service. And as part of his legacy, the Republican party of Florida now has 18 of 25 GOP Members of Congress, a Republican Governor, and majorities in both the State Senate and State House. Our country has lost a great American and an honored veteran. Mr. Speaker, the Congress, the State of Florida, and the Republican party have lost a distinguished leader. With Bill Cramer's passing, I have lost a great mentor and a good friend. To the Cramer family, Sara his wife, his sons Billy, Jr., Mark, Allyn, and his family, I extend my personal sympathy.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support this afternoon of one of the most important reauthorization pieces of legislation that will be addressed by this Congress, and that is the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Unfortunately, this is an issue that sometimes gets shoved below the radar screen in Congress and in our society, but I can tell the Members that there are very few social issues facing this Nation like the problem of illegal narcotics. In the latest report I have, the deaths that were drug related in this country in the year 2000, this is 3 years old, were 19,698. That is almost 54 human beings, 54 citizens in our country that die from drug-related deaths each day in the United States, an incredible number. And that is not to mention those who lose their lives such as the tragic death of those who were murdered in a drug-related crime in Baltimore, the Dawson family. Drug deaths now exceed homicides in the United States, and I would venture to say that nearly half of the homicides in the United States are drug related. One of the issues that has been raised if this reauthorization is putting more money in treatment, and when I was chairman I supported a good balanced approach, and I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) have tried to do that, and certainly the administration has. We have to understand that in the previous fiscal year 2002, the Federal Government spent nearly half, 45 percent, of all of its drug control policy budget on treatment and prevention. And it is not always how much we spend. It is very important how we spend that money, that it is spent effectively. If we have learned nothing else in our experience over the years on this major social problem facing us, it is that a balance of education and prevention, of treatment, of interdiction, of enforcement, and all of these elements put together in a balanced approach will make a difference. That is why this is a good, balanced approach. We have seen what has happened when we have good enforcement and when we do not have good enforcement. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has experienced that himself in Baltimore, one of our Nation's great cities, where the death toll was way over the 300 mark and they had lax enforcement. Mayor O'Malley went in, with the guidance of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and with attention from the Federal Government and others, we have reduced the tragedy of deaths in that city. We saw in New York City under the Giuliani plan deaths and homicides exceeded 2,000 in New York City. With a tough enforcement plan, that was reduced to between 600 and 700; and we still see the results of that tough enforcement. So we cannot make the mistake of imbalancing our approach, and that is why this is a good approach. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the chairman and ranking member. The President of the United States has taken a personal interest in the leadership of John Walters, the head of the Office of Drug Control Policy. They have a plan. It is working, it is effective, and it is a balanced approach and the right approach. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this important reauthorization.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, on this point, I am an authorizer, and I am very much aware that we do not want to authorize on appropriations measures, so we tried to craft this measure very carefully. In crafting it, we have used language that says, and again I quote from my amendment, in accordance with standards applicable to reports under Public Law 107-204. Public Law 107-204 is a law that applies to corporations in the United States of America. I have a copy of that here. Amtrak is the National Passenger Rail Corporation. It has a board of directors. It has an employee stock ownership plan. It has assets and liabilities. Additionally, it is taxpayer-funded. We have not gone outside of the parameters of existing law. There is a question, it appears from the General Accounting Office reports that I have cited, that Amtrak does not know what the bounds of the current laws are. This particular report was done prior to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Public Law 107-204. Again we are not requiring any new legislation, any new law. We are stating again that none of the funds made available under this act would be used by this corporation unless the corporation submits their quarterly and annual reports as required by law and in accordance with the standards of an existing law, merely clarifying, and I think it is an important point here that we make, that we do not go beyond any existing law requirements.

Mr. MICA. To the point?

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a simple amendment. It says that none of the funds made available under this act may be used by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation unless the corporation submits all quarterly and annual reports required by law in accordance with the standards applicable to reports under Public Law 107-204. Public Law 107-204 is basically the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reporting legislation that was passed after the Congress and the American people realized the extent of the problems brought about by the Enron scandal. In Enron, we had an instance where about $600 million, less than $1 billion, of investor money was lost through private investments in a corporation. We have a corporation that was created, again the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, almost every year for the last 4 or 5 years, they have lost $1 billion or in that neighborhood. Much of this is subsidized by the taxpayer. Hardworking Americans send their dollars to Washington, and not a whimper has been heard about the lost money or unaccounted-for money in Amtrak. We passed a law that required corporations across the land, and Amtrak is a corporation, this rail corporation, even by its name I just cited, is a corporation and all this says, that existing current law, nothing new, nothing greater, that was passed by this Congress for transparency, for accountability, be also known and be it clear that Amtrak is required to report on the same basis. We think it is very important. I will tell you why it is important. Again, as a member of the Subcommittee on Railroads under the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, let me just cite some of the things that the General Accounting Office 2000 report gave to our committee and to Congress. It found that Amtrak did not know its route- by-route costs of its mail and express program because it never separately identified these costs. It said in the report, according to an Amtrak official, Amtrak still has a long way to go in producing reliable mail and express financial information and in understanding the true cost of this business. Again, Amtrak is a corporation that has a board of directors, it has an employee stock ownership plan, it has assets and liabilities, and it also has taxpayer money coming into the program. We cannot tell, according to the GAO report, its finances. So I think it is long overdue that we take a step such as this and require that they comply with existing law that all other corporations must comply with. The report further went on and looked at a review of Amtrak's expenditure of $2.2 billion in Federal funds from the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. It found that Amtrak could not determine how it was spending its Federal funds, nor was Amtrak able to ensure that its spending was allowed under Federal law. So Amtrak, according to the Inspector General, does not even know what it is required to do under existing law. This is merely a clarifying, enunciating statement by this Congress that the same disclosure, the same standards that we require for corporations, it is clear that Amtrak as a corporation must also comply with. In fact, the report goes on to say that at one time Amtrak did not even have a process in place to review its spending practices. So we have questions again raised, and this is not something I made up. This is a General Accounting Office February 2000 report, telling us that there is not clarity in which laws or even which standards of reporting at Amtrak. We are not creating any new law under this particular provision. What we are doing is saying that Amtrak, that is taking a huge amount of taxpayer money, in the billions, going into debt in addition to the money that Congress is appropriating in the billions, and we are not able to say that it even complies with existing law. So this is a requirement to have Amtrak comply with existing law. Why should Amtrak not be held to the same standards and accountabilities and reporting requirements that Congress has imposed on corporate America? That is the question I leave before the House. Point of Order

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision found on page 9 beginning on line 14 and ending on line 15. The phrase ``to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and.'' This is an unauthorized appropriations from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a second point of order. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision found on page 12 beginning with the word ``for'' on line 12 through ``49 USC 44706'' on line 16 and again on page 12, line 22 beginning with the words ``provided further'' through page 13, line 2. This would fund administrative expenses of the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, and the cost of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program from contract authority that is authorized only for airport grants, not administrative expenses or other programs. It would also waive existing law. Both the proviso and this related language are legislative in nature and, therefore, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order on this section.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase, in quotes, Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178, as amended, end quotes, beginning on page 51, line 12. This phrase waives the statutory distribution of funds specified in TEA-21 for the job access and reverse commute grants program. In doing so it makes possible report language earmarking of projects that under section 3037(g) of TEA-21 must be selected on a competitive basis. In addition, it negates the formula allocation of the program based on community size as is required by section 3037(l)(3) of TEA-21. This blanket waiver is legislative in nature and in violation of rule XXI.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I had not planned to talk, but since my name was brought up in the debate in some comments about my comments, I thought it was important to respond. First, again, I view myself as a strong advocate of national passenger rail system; but we need a system that makes sense, a system that serves areas that need to be served and require the service, and if we want to have losing routes across the country, there is no problem. We subsidize aviation. We subsidize roads. We subsidize every form of transportation. Let us have a transparent subsidization. Let us subsidize the transportation at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer, and let us also bring in partners from those areas who want the service. If they want service and they want to subsidize it $350 a ticket, God bless them. They should have that service, and if they are willing to pay for part of that, maybe we will pay part of it too. But we have to look at, for one thing, the taxpayers' pocketbook here. The fact is, again, I do not know how to make this any clearer to my colleagues, Amtrak was given by Congress the mandate to run national passenger service. They have had that mandate. They have gotten into high-speed service. Can we tell the finances of Amtrak? I would venture to say if we looked at the Enron report and Enron loss-of-investor money, we are talking about losses of taxpayers' billions of dollars, five point X billion dollars in the last 5, 6 years that they have lost, we cannot tell the finances. This committee cannot tell us the finances. I just asked the staff for information about the finances of Amtrak. So I have identified the problem. The problem is Congress, because we have failed to put together a plan to provide national passenger service that makes sense. We have failed to put together corridors for high-speed service. The question comes to us should we give Amtrak more money, and if we give them $1.4 billion, can they do the job? If we give them $1.8 billion, can they do the job? Two billion dollars, can they do the job? It is ``no,'' by any stretch of financial accounting. Just add it up. Their deferred maintenance is over $5 billion. What are we going to do in this, a couple hundred million dollars at most? Their debt is a quarter of a billion, plus they have been hocking the family jewels to keep this thing operating. So the problem is us. I do not mind a high-speed corridor that makes sense. Honest to goodness, and I know a lot of people here are lawyers and we have got politicians and they cannot figure it out, but a route from Washington to New York that truly went high speed, 125 miles an hour as defined by law or whatever we have, that got people there in less than 2 hours, my goodness, even the people from Wall Street have said that is a winner. That will make money. They cannot figure that out in Washington. They want subsidization of a Soviet-style passenger service and impose it in a high-speed corridor. Does that make sense? Yes, these projects can make sense if we look at them from a business standpoint or a taxpayer standpoint as to how we are spending the money. So let us take a deep breath. We are not going to solve Amtrak's problem with $1.1 billion, with $1.4 billion, or with $2.4 billion; and I guarantee the Members, and I have got all the reports from the last several years, we will be back here again with the same debate no matter how much money we give them today if we do not solve the basic fundamental organizational, administrative problems and service problems that Amtrak is facing. So that is the story, the long and the short of it.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 164 which begins on page 53, line 3 and ends on page 54, line 12. This section amends the Buy America requirements for transit capital purchases of steel, iron, manufactured goods, and rolling stock. The amendments made by section 164 are meant to strengthen Buy America, but the Department of Transportation analysis has determined that there will be serious unintended consequences that will significantly slow the purchase and construction of transit system components and systems and also will result in more foreign-made products being purchased by transit agencies. This provision is legislative in nature and also in violation of rule XXI.

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