John Mica

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 Senate Concurrent Resolution 110.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 110) honoring the heroism and courage displayed by airline flight attendants on a daily basis.

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, this is not a time to come before the House of Representatives or the American people and make charges that are not correct. Every Member in this body wants to make certain that their family is secure, that every American is secure as they travel our airways. I have had the great honor and privilege of working with the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). We set goals that are very difficult to meet, and I do not think that we should back off from those obligations, but we know that the math does not add up. To accomplish the task that we set forth in the law November 19, the math does not add up. Here is the appropriations that we passed and voted for, and we approved 45,000 employees. Here is a report by the inspector general, the facts. We need 67,000 employees to complete the task. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and I heard testimony that in fact they can only produce 800 machines because we have missed the deadline by the delay in the appropriations measure, in passing the supplemental appropriations measure. What we have is the potential, if we pass this, of leaving a state of chaos and disorder for the December deadline. We do not need chaos and disorder; we need the plan that has been put together first by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), and then modified so it requires that when we do not meet the technical or personnel requirements that we put in place a plan. Do we want chaos or order? This requires order. The amendment does not. Are we to build bureaucracy in the name of security? I say no. But we have a responsibility. I just met with the President of the United States downstairs, and he talked about homeland security. That is what this bill and this measure is about, acting responsibly, putting the facts together and doing the best job we can as representatives of the people to secure for us the best security possible.

Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. MICA. No; but we need to act responsibly.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, just for the information of the House and the Speaker, I plan to use only 3 minutes of that time because the House does want to proceed with other business.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3479) to expand aviation capacity in the Chicago area, as amended.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity Enhancement Act. This legislation was introduced by the ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). This legislation codifies a long-sought agreement that was reached between the Governor of Illinois and the mayor of Chicago to address the critical aviation needs in the Chicago region. In December of 2001 after some 20 years of disagreement and in action, State and local leaders approved a plan to expand Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. The agreement also requires full FAA consideration of projects at regional reliever airports. These include the proposed South Suburban Airport in Peotone, and airports in Gary, Indiana, and Rockford, Illinois. H.R. 3479 is not, as some have claimed, an attempt for the Federal Government to in any way usurp local decision-making authority. The State and local decision-makers in the greater Chicago region have come to an agreement. This bill ensures that the agreement in fact will be implemented, but only if all normal procedures for FAA approval are completed and Federal funding is received. Federal approvals can take years. Title 2 of this legislation would help expedite that process. However, we do not want local leaders to change their minds while that process is in an ongoing situation and after having spent millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. Why should Congress care or become involved in ensuring the viability of this important Chicago agreement? It is simple. Chicago O'Hare Airport is absolutely vital to our National aviation system and also to our interstate commerce and this Nation's economy. O'Hare has consistently ranked as one of the world's busiest airports. It supports domestic hub operations for two major airlines, and over 70 million Americans a year and travelers use this facility. Even during the economic downturn and with the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, aircraft activity at O'Hare was up slightly last year. Unfortunately, O'Hare continues to be one of the most congested and delayed airports in the country. If future congestion at O'Hare affected only the Chicago area, we might not need to stand here before all of Congress to address this issue. However, the congestion in Chicago, in O'Hare often closes down and causes serious delay in our aviation activity across the Nation. This legislation does provide assurances needed to proceed with the much-needed projects at O'Hare, and again, it is the codification of local and State governments. Some of our colleagues have raised questions regarding this legislation, even said it is unconstitutional or supersedes State law. That is not the case. However, the preemption language contained in this legislation is extremely limited and is tied to a decision by the FAA to fund the O'Hare project. The preemption of State law would expire immediately upon a decision by the Federal Aviation Administration not to fund the construction of the O'Hare Capacity Enhancement Project. This legislation ensures that State law will not prevent the Federal Government from spending Federal funds the way the Federal Government intends they be spent. I would ask this body to remember State and local officials have already reached an agreement regarding Chicago's regional aviation projects, but the agreement is not binding on future administrations, and we are not going to go round in circles any longer on this. We have to look at the national interest. Therefore, before committing to a $6 billion capacity enhancement project at O'Hare, and it can even be more at this airport, it is absolutely reasonable to seek assurance that the agreement will not be abandoned by future State or future debate on this issue. This bill simply codifies a local agreement that addresses regional and our national transportation needs. This bill is good for interstate commerce. It is good for our economy, and it will protect our national interests, which is part of my responsibility. So, therefore, I support this legislation. I urge Members on all sides, regardless of their persuasion, to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has worked to protect the interests of the Peotone expansion. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who is one of the prime sponsors of this legislation.

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

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3479, as amended.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before you in support of this legislation that will name a Federal facility in honor of William C. Cramer, a former Member of this distinguished body. I have had the opportunity over the past 3 decades to know, and the opportunity to work with, the opportunity to admire Bill Cramer as he is affectionately known. Congressman Cramer, as we have heard, was one of the leaders in Republican-elected service in the State of Florida at a time when all the Republicans in the State legislature could meet in one phone booth and still have plenty of room left over. He not only led the beginning of a two-party system in the Florida legislature when he was first elected to Congress, he was the first and only Republican elected since the Civil War, one lone Republican member of the delegation; and today we have 15 of 23 due to his great legacy of service. I had the opportunity to work for Bill Cramer as a young man in his campaign for the United States Senate in 1970. Much of what I have learned in campaigns and much of what I learned about elected service comes from the model provided by Bill Cramer. Bill Cramer served in this House and also served as an inspiration for me to become involved in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He was one of the leading Republican members of its predecessor, the Committee on Public Works, and served with distinction. Bill Cramer's service is an example of the legacy that we can leave here, not just in words, but also in changing the infrastructure and the opportunity and lives of so many people. If you go through central Florida and look at the intrastate and the infrastructure projects from end to end, many of them show the handy work of this great leader who we are here to honor. Bill Cramer will be celebrating his 80th birthday, and it could not be more fitting to have any facility named for any individual I know of than the distinguished former gentleman from this body, the Honorable William C. Cramer.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and I thank the gentleman for handling this legislation today. Having just arrived by air, it sounds like a simple thing, I just arrived by air, but remember back to September 11, September 12, September 13, and we see the impact that aviation has on every American. We see how dependent our economy has become on aviation. Mr. Speaker, I chair the subcommittee and I try to be fair, and the worst thing to do is get in the middle of a food fight in a delegation or delegations of Members affected by legislative proposal. I tried to be fair in this proposal. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). No one is held in higher esteem than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I have great respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and have worked with him on the Peotone question. As chair of the subcommittee, however, I have to look not only at their interests but the interests of the Nation and the interests of the American people. And this is a difficult battle. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) does not want any more planes over the residents he represents and feels that this airport is already at capacity. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) wants additional traffic. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) wants additional traffic for an existing facility. But we have to move forward. I believe that this is as good a compromise as we can get. It is based on codifying an agreement. Now, mayors of Chicago come and mayors of Chicago will go. Governors of Illinois will come and go. One of the problems we have in trying to make these improvements that are so key to safety and capacity is that the players keep changing. This does codify an agreement, allows us to go forward in our national interest. Our national interest is, first, the safety of people who fly in and out of O'Hare. That airport has been congested. There has not been a single runway added since 1971, and something has to give in the modernization of those runways and capacity. If O'Hare were by itself, we could leave it by itself; but when O'Hare closes down, the Nation's air system also closes down. So we must do something to deal with that. Do we need improvements at O'Hare? Yes, we do. Do we need additional capacity at Peotone? I believe we will. Do we need to better utilize Rockford and Gary? Yes, and I think through our policy we can bring some of those changes about. So I support the legislation, and I ask my Members to agree with this compromise.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana. I strongly support his amendment before us. I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his making changes that have allowed us to support this amendment. While we have not received any indications from airlines that they would prohibit pilots from participating in the program, we feel pilots deserve ample protection in this matter. Pilots should not be punished for their desire to protect their aircraft, their crews, or their passengers from terrorists. I urge support of this amendment. I might also say, since this will probably be the last amendment, I believe, offered, that it is important to respond to a couple of other items relating to the airlines and their participation in this program. The very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), whom I greatly respect, a member of our committee, he rose in opposition. His opposition is primarily centered around giving the airlines the ability to opt out of this program. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment restrains the airlines from interfering with a pilot participating in this program; and we think that that approach, that provision is good. I do think that the gentleman from Michigan is well intended to allow airlines to opt out, and that is something they requested before. However, we have given them unprecedented exemption and liability, and I think that that should cover them. Again, my concern is that if we had one more incident of an airliner being taken out that we would not have to worry about airline survival; we would not have to worry about the economy, because they would all be going down the tubes. We have seen what the incidents of 9-11 have brought to us, and we are still trying to recover economically, and our airlines are trying to recover. So this is a good provision. It protects the pilots. We have also heard in the debate today about the pilots, and I want to remember today some of the captains that flew those planes on September 11. If they had had the ability to defend themselves, if even one of them had had the ability to be armed, we could have saved destruction; we could have saved lives. Some of those brave captains were Captain Jason Dahl, and he was the pilot on United Flight 93. On United Flight 175 was Captain Victor Saracini. On American Flight 11 was Captain John Ogonowski, and on American Flight No. 77 was Captain Charles Burlingame. If even one of those captains had had the ability to defend himself, history today might be entirely different. We do not want anything to interfere with pilots' ability to defend themselves. Yes, I would like to have more pilots trained, and I would like to expedite this whole program. But again, our compromise does not allow that. Finally, let me respond to the gentlewoman, also a distinguished Representative who serves on our committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and she referred to the TSA experts. Well, I will tell my colleagues, I would rather put my trust and faith in the pilots. We have to understand that sometimes we get letters from our constituents around the country and we get maybe 100, sometimes many hundreds of letters on a particular issue. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I was presented with petitions from 58,000 pilots and many of their families who signed petitions asking us for this legislation. As I have said in the past, this is not something we just cooked up in the back room; this is not something that I sprung out. In fact, I was kind of lukewarm at the beginning. But the more I saw, the more I heard from pilots who see the weaknesses in our aviation security system. I put my trust in those pilots, and that is why we have moved forward with this bill. It is not a perfect measure, by any means, but it is a good bill, a good start. I support the gentleman's amendment, and urge its adoption.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, again, we have presented in a slightly altered technical fashion, I believe, this amendment which we have talked about before. I must reluctantly rise in opposition. I think the gentleman, again, is well-intended in that he is saying, why not go to the full body of pilots and train them? We have though, again, as I have said before, tried to think through this bill how we could achieve training those who have the best credentials, the best experience, on an expedited basis. Certainly those with military and law enforcement backgrounds meet those criteria. So we will actually harm the bill by passing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Again, I think the gentleman is well-intended, both by this amendment and his previous amendment, in trying to get many pilots trained on an expedited basis and get many pilots, a large percentage of them, armed within a certain period of time. I also realize his mistrust of the bureaucracy. We have seen that sometimes we assign tasks, and that task is not fulfilled or somehow gets distorted. Again, I understand his motivation, but must reluctantly oppose his amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. My good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), I think is very well intended. I think he was probably well intended on his first amendment that he offered, and I see now what he was trying to achieve and what he is trying to achieve by these amendments, and he is saying we need to speed up this process. His amendment first, I think, was intended to have a larger body than just a smaller body of pilots trained, and I would concur with his intention. I appreciate his withdrawing that amendment. His second amendment that we have this afternoon says that 20 percent should be trained in the first 6 months and I believe 80 percent by the end of the second year, and I think that is also well intended. I think the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), has pointed out that we looked at the tasks that have already been assigned to TSA and we said wait a minute, this agency was given much more than it can do, and usually when Government gets a program, it costs twice as much, takes twice as many employees and costs three times as much, and we are finding our prediction to be true, and some of my concerns about passing the full federalization without the private participation to also be accurate. We found already that TSA, just in a simple assignment, assigned 429 airport security directors. To my knowledge, they have only named about four dozen, about 48. They have actually only deployed a little over two dozen, and here we are in July. So this amendment, while well intended, and we would like to have more pilots trained, is a very difficult task. If we look at another task that was assigned to TSA, and that is to train screeners, my latest knowledge is they might have had 3,000 possibly trained. We might have a dozen airports deployed and federalized at this stage, again in July, and they just cannot do it. And that is not to mention anything about the lack of having explosive detection equipment deployed, which we said would be difficult, which we said is impossible for manufacturers to even produce. We now find ourselves with the possible requirement of training some 20,000 to 25,000 hand wand trace detection Federal employees to complete another requirement by Congress. So, unfortunately, this is not achievable. I would like to see it. I would like to get on a plane and know that a pilot is ready and capable of defending that cockpit, but we have reached a compromise here where we think the maximum they can do is this 1,400. They start out with a group of 250 and that is sort of the kick-in trigger that we have put in the bill, but we can get up to 1,400. We hope they can get this assignment accomplished. Let me just say one word about the airlines' opposition to some of this. We have provided protection for the airlines in an unprecedented manner to protect them against liability. I know that is their concern. But my concern, and it should be their concern, is if we have one more incident, it will be fatal to airlines. If we have one more incident, it will be fatal to our economy. If we have one more incident, it will be fatal to potentially thousands and thousands of Americans, and we lost 3,000 of them on September 11. We cannot afford to lose one more. So we need to put these measures in place on a well-thought-out basis. I think that is the approach. I commend the gentleman for coming out and adding to the debate, offering this amendment, but I must reluctantly stand in opposition.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Again, we have tried to work out a bipartisan agreement. I think the gentleman from Indiana is well-intended in offering his amendment; but unfortunately, it has not been agreed to as part of this package. This amendment, as I understand it, would eliminate a key section of the underlying bill, the selection preference that is granted to pilots who have former military or law enforcement experience. We think this is extremely important because we know that many of our pilots have previous military experience. They already have handled weapons and arms. They know how to defend themselves and have had extensive training. The same is true with law enforcement individuals. Those who have had experience more than likely have had experience with weapons, arming themselves, defensive measures; and we think that, again, this invaluable experience will be helpful in defending the cockpit, in learning the new procedures that are required as established under the guidelines of the TSA. So we think it is essential that having this selection process and giving preference to both military and law enforcement personnel, those who have had that experience, makes perfect sense. When the determination as to which pilots are qualified to participate in the Federal flight deck program is being made, previous experience with a firearm should absolutely be taken into consideration. That is the agreement that we have reached, and that is the agreement we must stick to. So, unfortunately, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge Members also to oppose the amendment. We should leave the amendment as we have now passed it intact, and I think we will have a much better piece of legislation. So, again, I oppose this amendment by the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MICA. Again, if the gentleman would yield, I absolutely agree that as long as an airline has developed the appropriate training program and has the proper protocols ready to implement, that the TSA should quickly approve the airline's application to enhance security of their personnel and their passengers.

Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield again, I am aware that United has made such an application.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, certainly the airlines and the flight crews should be given the tools they feel are appropriate to protect themselves and their passengers, and that is why we have set the 90-day deadline for the Transportation Security Administration to issue a decision on applications from carriers to utilize less-than-lethal technology.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the Transportation Security Administration has yet developed a process to review these applications at this time.