John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have three points of order, and I would like to take them one at a time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I came to join the Amtrak debate. We have a great amendment before us, proposed by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). I think he is well-intended. It shows the depth we have sort of sunk into when the debate on our national rail passenger service has a Member come forward and say we are subsidizing $350 a ticket on a losing route, which serves my area, and it would be better to put the money on a drug rehabilitation program, for which I probably concur. I did not come to speak in favor of the amendment, but I think there is a lot of logic if we are going to throw money away on a losing proposition on Amtrak the way it is currently constituted, it would be better to put it on the proposal the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has brought forth. First, let me say I am not an opponent to national passenger rail service and increasing actually good service. What we have now is a Soviet-style partial government operation of our national passenger rail service. We have had reports for as long as I have served on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Railroads, for some 11 years, we have got to reform Amtrak. The problem is not Amtrak. The problem is right here: Congress. Congress has failed to authorize a program under which we can provide good national passenger long-distance service, a program under which we can provide and catch up with the rest of the world in high-speed service. Yes, we need to put the money into it. But do we want to put the money into a losing proposition that we would be better off putting it into a drug program? I heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). He is very well intended, and he wants to up the amount to $1.8 billion. We just heard from the ranking member of the subcommittee that they have been losing $1.1 billion. The facts are that Amtrak has lost, as we heard, $1.1 billion in need of that subsidy in addition, but below that their debt now exceeds $5 billion each year for the past 4 or 5 years. They have gone into debt, they have hocked the whole system and even their real estate assets. So that the debt and the depth of problems with Amtrak is far greater than what is brought here today. Mr. Gunn is a great administrator, but he has to administrate the law that Congress passed some 30 years ago to do everything as far as passenger service and high-speed service and other activities that Amtrak is involved in and nothing gets done well. So you can have the best manager and if Congress does not make the changes necessary, it will not run. He came to us at our subcommittee and said he needed $2 billion, first for 5 years, a total of $10 billion. Then he came back and he said he needed $2 billion for 3 years, a total of $6 billion. The maintenance backlog of Amtrak alone exceeds $6 billion. So if you think you are fixing Amtrak by throwing more money at the problem, you are wrong. It will not solve it because they are losing more than $2 billion a year if you add in the debt. Just their debt payment is a quarter of a billion dollars a year. Plus, they have a retirement fund obligation which exceeds $7 billion. What we need to do is reorganize Amtrak, and Congress needs to organize it so we have high-speed service and long-distance service. And we do it right, we just do not throw money at the problem. I would favor $60 billion towards national passenger rail service and high- speed, or $100 billion, because we need that alternative. And in the end, it is cost effective to concrete and cement and roads and other alternatives that we are faced with. So it is cost effective, but who wants to give Amtrak more responsibility for high-speed service? The Acela program, we gave them billions, billions of dollars, and they blew it. The contract is in litigation. They bought equipment that does not fit the chassis, and it runs 82 to 83 miles per hour. Is that high-speed service? Even under our national definition of high-speed rail, it does not meet that criteria. Let us reform Amtrak and let us solve the problem. Let us not throw money at the problem.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a third and final point of order I would like to offer on behalf of myself and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 105 which begins on page 14, line 16 through page 15, line 2. That section authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to accept funds from an airport sponsor to expedite the environmental review process for airport projects that would add critical airport capacity to the National Air Transportation System. The conference report on H.R. 15 contains a provision that is similar but, in fact, broader in scope. The language in H.R. 15 will allow the FAA to accept funds from an airport sponsor in order to facilitate the timely processing, review and completion of environmental activities associated with any airport development project. To avoid the confusion that could arise from the enactment of two inconsistent provisions, I object to section 105 on the grounds that it is legislative in nature and in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to put into the Record, since we are having this Amtrak debate, a couple of facts relating to the service of Amtrak, and I will be very brief. Amtrak's long-distance service record, just one example: From Boston to Albany, in 1936 the B&M Minuteman, it took 4 hours 50 minutes to go from Boston to Albany. That is before Amtrak. In 2003, Amtrak Lakeshore Limited goes from Boston to Albany in 5 hours. Then I just wanted to also make certain that we have in this debate, we talked about subsidizing the losses. This is the Amtrak Reform Council, which we put in place in 1997 I believe it was, to look at reforming Amtrak, coming up with a proposal, which has so far been ignored, for restructuring the five routes with the most losses and the amount estimated per rider loss: From Los Angeles to Chicago is a $236.76 subsidy, a loss; from Chicago to New York we lose $244.69 per passenger; from San Antonio to Chicago, we lose $258.25; from Chicago to Philadelphia, we only lost $292.34 cents; and from Los Angeles to Orlando, to serve my area, we only lose $347.45. I thought that would be appropriate to read into the Record at this time. Point of Order

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, a storm delayed my U.S. Air flight and I was unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 460, 461, and 462. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, today, on Constantino Brumidi's 198th birthday, I have introduced a resolution which will honor, in conjunction with his bicentennial in 2005, the life and work of this Italian immigrant who spent 25 years painting, decorating and making beautiful the United States Capitol. In January of 2005, the Capitol Visitor Center is scheduled to open, marking the largest expansion ever to the United States Capitol. I am introducing this resolution now in order to have time to coincide what will be a momentous occasion with the 200th anniversary of Brumidi's birth. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting that we celebrate the opening of the CVC while concurrently honoring the man who sacrificed so much to adorn this very building with such beauty. Constantino Brumidi was born almost 200 years ago in Italy and lived there until 1850, working as an artist in Rome and the Vatican where he had many commissions, including a famous portrait of Pope Pius IX. In 1852, due to political upheavals in Rome, Brumidi immigrated to the United States and immediately applied for citizenship. From then on, he dedicated the rest of his life to making the United States Capitol one of the most impressive structures in our great Nation. In 1865, Brumidi spent 11 months dangerously high atop the Capitol Rotunda laboring on his masterpiece, ``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 his painting of the Boston Massacre. And in 1878, at the age of 72 and in poor health, Brumidi began work on the Rotunda frieze, which chronicles the history of the United States. Constantino Brumidi's life and work exemplifies the lives of millions of immigrants who came to the United States, who came here to escape adverse conditions in their native lands, who through their skills and hard work bettered their lives and the lives of their children, while immensely enriching the United States. Mr. Speaker, I urge prompt consideration of this resolution.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mediocrity. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about mediocrity and perpetuating mediocrity among our neediest students and those who really need an advantage. Let me say, I have a degree in education and my interest is in the quality of the education. And for the first time, a President has come forward with a package that would not ensure mediocrity but ensure quality in the Head Start program for the very first time. Let me give an example. I come from a district that is very broad and very big. I represent large counties, and I represent small counties. So I spent the time some 6 and 8 years ago and have been back again to look at the Head Start program and the preschool programs to see what they are doing. I can tell you what they are doing is they are spending a lot of money. They are spending a lot of money on bureaucracy, not all on programs. I have a good program in my big county, and we are able to support that. I have two counties that are over 45 miles apart, and I begged and pleaded to try to get a Head Start program that made sense. We went to Atlanta. We went to Washington. We said, no, you cannot do that. We do not have enough students in either county. We have 200 in one and 300 in another to support the bureaucracy that is required by Head Start. So we asked for a little flexibility, and we got no flexibility. We still have no flexibility today. Today we have eight administrators in a program earning between $31,000 and $42,000. I have a total of 34 administrative various personnel required by the program for 500 students and two counties that are separated by almost 50 miles. So I am spending the monies on bureaucracy, and you will not give me the flexibility to give my kids the best chance possible. I have got teachers; and I do not have one teacher, not one teacher out of all the so-called teachers that we have in the program that are certified. Would you want your children to go to a school if we take the certification out of the school, the pre-school programs or any of the programs that we take it out and force your children to go to that? Today we are spending between $12,000 for our so-called teachers and $22,932. And my bureaucrats in the program are getting up to $42,000. I do not have one qualified teacher and that is the mediocrity you want to resign our children to, my children to? These children deserve a head start. That is what the program was about. There is not one dollar cut in this. There are no standard cuts in this; but we do allow a little bit of flexibility, and we do allow quality. The President has requested quality in the program. For the first time we will have people who actually have had an education to educate our weakest, poorest-performing students. Is that a lot to ask for, I ask you? I have waited some 8, 9 years for these students. Do not deny my students this opportunity. Do not deny them quality. Do not deny them flexibility. Do not relegate them to mediocrity or bureaucracy. You can tell I am very passionate about this. I feel very strongly about this. This is the biggest improvement we can make for the future of these children. I do not ask you to accept this. I plead with you to work with us to try to improve this program. We do not cut money. We do not cut quality. We make improvements and I ask you to help us.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I am pleased to come before the House on this issue, and I am so glad this issue is being discussed. I have waited some 10 years for this issue to be discussed in this manner before the House of Representatives. This is the most important vote that this House of Representatives and this Congress will have since we did welfare reform because we are talking about the future of our most needy and deserving citizens, our most disadvantaged citizens. We are talking about the children of those individuals in our society who need a Head Start and we were not providing that. I have heard rhetoric from the other side, and we saw the parade of mediocrity coming down the aisle advocating the continuation of the same, the same exact situation.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my friends in the Chamber to oppose the substitute that is being proposed because it does not offer us the opportunity for the flexibility that we need. Let me say at the outset, and this has been repeated over and over, that the proposal before us does keep standards, it ensures standards, it has fire walls to protect standards and it even increases standards as we heard from the previous speaker, because for the first time we will have teachers who have qualifications to teach our most disadvantaged students. We increase funding. There is no diminution of funding in this legislation. The red herring that at some point funding will be decreased or diverted is not possible under the provisions of this legislation. Most importantly, we do improve quality. I described earlier the problem that I face. I have some wonderful Head Start programs. I represent some small areas and some large metropolitan areas and some of the Head Start programs are great. I have been to them; I have seen what they can do. But the substitute before us would eliminate the flexibility that we need in some of our other areas. I described two Head Start programs, one with 200 children, one with 300 and not enough to support 34 noninstructive personnel that are required under the standards that we cannot get any flexibility on. We have pleaded to try to have that flexibility, to give these students a chance. So here we have for the first time the opportunity to improve the quality. Let us talk about the students that we have, the children that we have in these programs. These, Mr. Chairman, are our poorest children. These are our most disadvantaged children. These are our children that maybe are social problems throughout their lives. Here is an opportunity to improve the quality. They have come from homes where they cannot have that advantage, and Head Start can give them that advantage. We can do more even with less money. I measured the amount of money we are spending in this one program that is over two counties. It is $8,439. I have no problem with spending that. I would double the amount if the program is effective. The best prep school, preschool program in my district costs, ironically, $8,400. I could save $39 and send them to that and I am not even proposing that. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this opportunity for flexibility and quality, improving the lives of our most needy children.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think that some of the things that have been said need to be responded to. Mostly there has been talk. I am pleased to have been part of action to deal with the AIDS problem, particularly on the continent of Africa and around the world. Part of this Republican Congress, rather than talk, has acted, and under the direction of our President, rather than talk, who has acted; but to give complete details in response, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Arizona at this time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his response and his explanation and also his compassion for all the people who suffer from this horrible disease, but we do regretfully recommend that we oppose this amendment.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding. I also thank her for her leadership and for her work on the Committee on Government Reform. I had the opportunity to chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources when some of the Plan Colombia was put together. And in conclusion here, we know that in the past, not much was done to stem illegal narcotic production and trafficking or the violence in Colombia. We had a President in Colombia who tried to the Cumbayah and the peace in dealing with the terrorists and that did not work. We now have a President in Colombia who is committed to the tenets of Plan Colombia, which is a strong interdiction, which is demanding reforms in the military to cultivation of other alternative crops, to building the judiciary and the strength of the institutions of Colombia. We have a President of the United States who is committed to Plan Colombia. We have seen the results in the past where tens of thousands have died per year in Colombia and in the United States. And now we have an opportunity to move forward. Even the statistics of the Washington Post, which was a critic in the beginning of Plan Colombia, now says the critics were wrong. A 25 percent reduction in murders, a 33 percent reduction in killings. So we have a President here committed to the plan. We have a President in Colombia committed to the plan, and it is a working plan and people are not dying. Finally, let me insert in the Record since 1993, the number of deaths provided to me today by ONDCP, Americans who died from drug-related deaths in this country, drug-induced deaths, 148,185 Americans, more than we have lost in any tragedy we can imagine of contemporary times, in the period from 1993 to 2000, not even a 10-year period. We have a chance to stop the death and the dying and the destruction of lives here. We have a chance to stop the death and destruction and lives being lost in our neighboring country Colombia; so it would be a step backward to pass this amendment proposed by the gentleman. I know he is well intended, but I strongly urge opposition to this.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I come in very strong opposition to the McGovern amendment. I could not be any more opposed to any amendment that has been proposed in the House in some time. Let me discuss for my colleagues, some of them have been here, some of them have not been here during what has happened with the increase of illegal narcotics coming in from Colombia. In 1992 and 1993, these charts are almost unbelievable. There is almost no cocaine coming in from Colombia, and there was zero heroin coming in from Colombia. Then appeared on the scene the Clinton administration which said, oh, we cannot harm the hairs on any guerrillas, we must protect human rights in Colombia and we must not do anything about drug trafficking there; we must not interfere in the civil conflict. We did nothing and tens of thousands died. Members of the legislature, members of the judiciary, citizens by the thousands died in the civil war that had gone on there, and the atrocities increased. The production of illegal narcotics increased, and the deadly narcotics came from Colombia. Here is the statistics: again, zero in 1993 and almost all of the deadly heroin coming into the United States, and this had some results. The results are absolutely incredible. In the year 2000, 19,698, almost double from 1993, Americans died from drug-related deaths, more than homicides. We have a silent war going on in this country. So we sat down and we formed a plan, and it was opposed time and time again. Former Congressman Gilman, who chaired the Committee on International Relations, brought forth a Plan Colombia and plans to try to bring in helicopters to go after this, to assist in training the Colombians and attacking drugs and terrorism; and it was shot down time and time again. Finally, through the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hastert), who was chair of the Subcommittee on Drug Oversight, and God, I think, had a hand in making him Speaker of the House, we were able to get Plan Colombia together. The critics said we were wrong, The Washington Post said. The critics now say we are right. Plan Colombia and President Bush have put it into action to train the military down there, to stop the violence. The violence has stopped. The statistics we hear are old statistics. Twenty-five percent reduction in murders, 33 percent reduction in killing. We stopped some of the killing, and this amendment will again put us in the position of beginning the killing, beginning the destruction, not only in Colombia but on our streets and neighborhoods. So we have a chance now to move Plan Colombia forward and we cannot destroy that chance through this amendment. Plan Colombia, the progress is unbelievable. It benefitted 22,829 families in Colombia, supported 24,549 hectares of legal crops, it completed 349 community projects, established 33 legal service centers, constructed 19 oral trial courtrooms, trained 3,400 judges, and aided 774,000 internally displaced people. Those are the statistics. That is the truth. That is what Plan Colombia has done, and we cannot take a step backward tonight. It would be a disaster for those mothers and fathers that I have met with who have lost their children from the cocaine, the heroin that has come up from Colombia that we have not stopped. We have a chance tonight to move Plan Colombia forward or move it backward and allow the killing to continue in Colombia. Again, in the name of human rights, how many more people should die there? How many more people should die on the streets of my neighborhood in Florida or in the streets of New York? Rich, poor, all are affected by what is going on. What about the silent deaths by the tens of thousands in our country? Tonight would be the worst step we could take in the history of this Congress relating to our work against illegal narcotics to pass this amendment, to take a step backward to where we were, and to do what did not work should not be allowed to again happen in the Congress of the United States. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time. I had the opportunity in Congress some 2\1/2\ years ago to chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for some 2 years. During that time, I held the first hearings, really, in Congress on the question of legalization of marijuana; and I tried to approach the issue of the medical use of marijuana from an open standpoint. We conducted hearings and brought in what we considered were the best medical experts, and we dug into all of the testimony. And, my colleagues, I can say here tonight that we did not find one scintilla of evidence that there was any medical benefit by consuming marijuana, whether an individual was healthy or whether they were ill, or terminally ill. There was no evidence to that effect. It has become sort of a cause celebre to promote these initiatives with huge amounts of money. And at first blush, I think people support some of these as possibly being compassionate, as we hear here. We have also heard here that the medical use of marijuana will relieve pain. Well, I can say also from chairing that subcommittee that that is not the case. In fact, anything that we do to encourage use, whether for this purpose or other purposes, will not relieve pain, it will cause pain. Certainly, I am sure if someone smoked enough marijuana or took enough crack or enough heroin or methamphetamines, they would not have any pain. What we did learn in our testimony and what I have learned over the several years that I have served on that committee in the Congress is, we did learn this one thing. We learned that the marijuana that we have on the market today, and we have heard this from the previous chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and others, who cited that today's marijuana is not the marijuana we had some 20 or 30 years ago. There is a several hundred percent increase in potency in what is on the market. We also heard that marijuana is the greatest substance abuse of our teenagers, even exceeding, believe it or not, alcohol today. We also learned that there are more than 19,000 drug-related deaths in the United States, overdose deaths, which now exceed homicides. And everything we do towards trying to glorify or utilize marijuana for whatever use or whatever purpose does lead more of our young people to use this. Marijuana is a gateway drug, and so we end up with a death toll that we have seen so painfully across this Nation. So if the object here is to relieve pain, that is not what is being done. It will cause pain. Almost every police group opposes the Hinchey amendment. Let me just read some of the folks that oppose it. The Fraternal Order of Police, the world's largest police union, made up of 300,000 members of State and local enforcement officers nationwide, and the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition, with more than 60,000 members, have expressed strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment that would prohibit enforcement of Federal marijuana laws in some States but not in others. Police groups oppose the amendment because Federal enforcement of marijuana helps deter use and trafficking in harder drugs and also in related crimes against property and some of our most violent crime. Finally, some of those police groups that oppose the Hinchey amendment have said to us, we strongly encourage Members of Congress who support their local police officers and law enforcement to oppose this amendment. And we have letters from the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition and the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police stating their clear opposition. Again, I think the presentation of this amendment has been that this would relieve pain and be compassionate. My colleagues, this will cause pain, and there are many who confirm that.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 397. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''. Stated against:

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise this evening in support of the motion offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. We are in concurrence with the other side of the aisle. This is a bipartisan effort to instruct conferees on the position of the House as opposed to the Senate. I would say very briefly that the level of funding that the House proposes is in the best interests of our aviation community. There are a number of programs that have been spoken to, air traffic control modernization and other safety and security issues, that do need to be addressed at the level that is authorized by the House and that is the preferable position. Again, I am pleased to join my colleague. It would be sad if we stepped back, last year was the safest year in the record of safety in American aviation history, and not properly address the needs of one of the most viable parts of our economy and that is the aviation industry. We support the position, we support this motion to instruct conferees, we support a 4-year as opposed to a 3-year reauthorization. I would strongly encourage the adoption of the motion to instruct conferees offered by my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to mechanical malfunctions on Delta Flight 5007. The airplane had to make an emergency landing and return to Orlando International Airport. I could not vote on the following: Rollcall No. 354. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; Rollcall No. 355. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''; Rollcall No. 356. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; Rollcall No. 357. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''; Rollcall No. 358. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; Rollcall No. 359. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Appointment Of Conferees

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 521 on page 41, line 15 through line 25, of H.R. 2555 on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of the House rule 21 and therefore is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 514.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 522 on page 42, line 1, through page 43, line 24. This section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It, in fact, changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the House rules. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I have assured the sponsor of this original provision, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), that the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will be adding a similar provision to our aviation security bill, H.R. 2144, during full committee markup tomorrow, Wednesday, and we will have similar language, and we do have the authority to authorize this language. Unfortunately, his language is authorizing on an appropriations measure; and therefore I raise that point of order.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against section 522.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield.