John Mica

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Georgia on this important issue of training standardization for our Federal flight deck officers and also for our Federal air marshals. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center should be designated as an approved training facility for both the Federal Air Marshal Program and also for the Federal Flight Deck Officer program.

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

Mr. MICA. Yes. So we do have that ability. I want to clarify that. That may appear to be contradictory, but in fact we are putting this in this particular provision. Again, I think it is well thought out, I think it gives us the ability to defend the cockpit. And a terrorist will not know, a terrorist will not know which of these pilots are armed, but they will know that we as a Congress have acted and allowed some of those pilots to be armed. They will not know how many air marshals are on what plane either, but they will know there will be air marshals. They will know there will be another line of defense. So, again, I think this is a good beginning. I think it is a good compromise. I want to honor the compromise that we have so carefully crafted. Again, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friends, the DeFazio-Thune-Nethercutt amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that, no, we would repeal that, but we replace it with this provision.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my heart is with the proponents of this amendment, but my vote must reluctantly be with those with whom I have agreed to compromise, so I rise in opposition to this amendment. Some of the things that have been said by the proponents of this amendment are correct, and all pilots should have the ability to defend themselves. However, in our system, nobody gets their way 100 percent. Although it has been delightful to see some of the Members who were on the other side of the issue scampering to get back to my original proposal, it is always great to see Members in this body do a 180- degree turn back in the direction of the proposal which I had advocated in the first place, but nonetheless, we have thought this out. We learned some experiences from passing legislation in the heat of passion and in the heat of circumstances post-September 11. We have heard that the Transportation Security Administration, which we created, which we gave far too many tasks to, which we tried to argue against but we lost that debate, we do not want to make the same mistake now in giving TSA any more than they can put on their platter. The chairman of the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations was quoted a month ago saying that TSA is in chaos. We do not want to add to that chaos. Members have already heard how their finances are stretched. Therefore, we came up with a compromise that allows 2 percent. It does not sound like a lot, but it can be as many as 1,400 pilots to be trained on a voluntary basis with the specifications of weapons, of storage of weapons, of every detail involved in the process of defending the cabin and the cockpit. I think that is a reasonable compromise. I think this is a reasoned and well-thought-out approach. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have to understand, too, that TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, has the ability to put a rule in place today, before the day is out. We gave in our unprecedented legislation, signed by the President November 19, we gave them the ability to do this today. They have not done that, and shame on them for not doing that. That is why we are here as policymakers, to put that in place. We have not eliminated that possibility, but we have only put in place a beginning program. I think the program will work. I think it is well thought out. So, again, it is with reluctance that I oppose this to honor the agreement that we have come forward with, which I think is a good agreement.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, the modification that we just offered to my amendment is merely technical and does provide some conforming and consistent language. The manager's amendment that I have offered today does make some relatively minor changes. However, it does not change at all the fundamental thrust of the legislation, and that is to establish a pilot program under which about 2 percent, 2 percent specified and about 1,400 pilots, can arm themselves to stop a hijacking. We chose that number because, again, we think during the next 2 years that will provide us a good test basis; and given TSA's track record and performance, I think that is probably about all they can do in that time frame to get this program under way. The purpose of this amendment today is to address some of the issues that have been raised, but not totally resolved, during our committee markup. For example, the bill directs the Secretary of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to focus on the safest way to store guns between flights. This amendment also directs the TSA to decide whether a pilot should be subject to an additional background check before being allowed to be traveling armed. This amendment also directs the TSA to minimize any risk that might occur from the accidental discharge of a weapon. It further makes clear that the pilot could lose the right to fly armed if that pilot is responsible for the accidental discharge of a weapon. Further, it requires a report compiling all the instances where a weapon was discharged on an aircraft. Again, we have tried to incorporate constructive suggestions in this manager's amendment. In addition, this amendment significantly beefs up self-defense training for flight attendants. Many flight attendants were concerned that the existing training provisions were inadequate. The bill approved by the committee already directs that improvements in their training should be made, and this amendment further specifies the type of training that should be provided to the flight attendants. It also urges TSA to make certain that it has the personnel in place who are capable of monitoring the training program. One change in this manager's amendment that we reluctantly included was the deletion of the provision making hands-on self-defense training voluntary for flight attendants. It will be now, again by this amendment, mandatory. We were concerned that some flight attendants might be reluctant to actively participate in the more physical aspects of self-defense training for fear it might adversely affect their health or safety. However, the representatives of the flight attendants organizations assured us they wanted all flight attendants to be required to participate in all aspects of self-defense training, so we have today honored that request. Finally, this amendment changes existing law on less-than-lethal weapons. Existing law authorizes the government to permit pilots to carry less-than-lethal weapons, but it provides no deadline for the government's decision. This amendment does provide a deadline for the decision, but it leaves it up to the TSA to decide whether or not to allow those weapons. I will get into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) later on on that issue. Personally, I do not believe that the less-than-lethal weapons will be effective in stopping a determined terrorist, and from the demonstrations we have seen, there is a lot to be desired and a lot lacking in using that as the only line of defense. But I think those who seek permission to carry that particular less-than-lethal type of protection are entitled to at least a timely answer. In sum, this is a good manager's amendment. It improves the bill, it incorporates many constructive provisions, and it is a bipartisan compromise. I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, allowing pilots to defend themselves and their passengers, their aircraft, is absolutely fundamental to the safety and security of our aviation system in this Nation. Unfortunately, the United States of America faces a new and changing threat unlike anything we have ever experienced before. That is the threat of global terrorism. This threat will exist, unfortunately, for a long time, and we must take absolutely every action to protect America against those who would seek to kill innocent citizens. Since September 11, we have enacted some sweeping security reforms. We have created a new Federal agency with unprecedented authority in transportation security measures. We have also been in the process of deploying Federal air marshals, federalizing our screener work force, mandating that all bags undergo explosive checks, and also requiring reinforcement of cockpit doors. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we do know that many of these reforms will not be in place for some time to come. We know it will be impossible to place air marshals on all of the at- risk flights. Full cockpit doors security conversions will not be complete until sometime, I believe, late in the year 2003. And what is most disturbing, and we have seen this behind closed doors and now revealed in the media in the last few days, weapons are still getting through airport security. This is the headline from July 1: ``Airport Security Failures Persist.'' A recent test by the TSA revealed that screeners failed to detect weapons nearly 25 percent of the time at our busiest airports. In fact, we found at our three major airports in the country screeners failed to detect potentially dangerous items in at least half of the tests. At a fourth location, and that happened to be Los Angeles International Airport which has also been in the news, the results were not much better. The failure rate there was 41 percent. We know it is impossible again to protect ourselves with either a private workforce or a fully federalized screener workforce to catch all of these weapons and potentially dangerous items. And there is strong evidence to suggest that even more terrorist cells have been trained to take over commercial aircraft. At our subcommittee hearing, we showed these photographs, satellite photographs, of training camps. We know that terrorists are being trained to use both lethal and nonlethal methods of taking over aircraft, so the threat of another 9- 11-type hijacking is, in fact, real. NORAD, the North American Defense, has a standing order to shoot down any plane under the control of hijackers and that gives us the possibility of killing hundreds of innocent passengers to prevent a plane from being used as a weapon. I ask you, is that the only line of defense we should have? I strongly believe that under these circumstances armed, trained and qualified pilots who volunteer is, in fact, a necessary step towards ensuring the safety and security of the flying public. Nothing, my colleagues, can provide a greater deterrence or effectiveness than having a weapon wielded by a highly trained individual, especially if we have the potential of armed terrorists taking over a plane, as we know they are being trained for. Pilots have had the ability to arm themselves in less dangerous times. A photo has been provided to me by an individual who has a record here, photographic record of actual property of United Airlines, a gun that was issued by airlines in the past. So pilots have had the ability in much less dangerous times of arming themselves. In fact, they were even supplied these weapons, as we can see, by the airlines. So we have a situation where pilots are almost unanimous in asking for the ability to once again defend themselves, their passengers and their aircraft. There is no one that has more experience or no one that sees our aviation security shortfalls more on a daily basis than a pilot. Each day they see how the weaknesses of the system exist, and they are asking that they be allowed to arm themselves. Congress has a responsibility today to hear their plea in this important matter. I believe this is one of the most vital issues we have as far as aviation security in the United States, and I ask for support of all colleagues today.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. We do have before us the question of passing a rule and then going on to debating the question of allowing pilots to defend themselves. First, I would like to speak in favor of the rule. I think this is a fair rule. We have tried to approach this issue in a fair manner to give both those on the subcommittee and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the full committee, everyone, fair and equal opportunity to look at the situation, to contribute to the legislation, and to try to improve safety and security for the flying public. Now, why are we here and why are we debating today? We are here because we are representatives of the people. We are here because the most terrible attack in the history of the United States took place against our Nation and our people on September 11. We are here because as representatives of the people, we have one responsibility as a primary responsibility, and that is to ensure our national security, our domestic security, and the personal security of every American citizen. We represent the people. We come here and we learn the facts dealing with security issues, and we have a responsibility to set the laws. Now, we have heard that there may be some amendments offered here today, and there will be, and they need to be openly and fairly debated, and this rule gives that ability. Everyone will have their say. It is my hope that the end product will be something that can ensure the safety and security of the flying public. It can make each of us, whether we get on a plane individually or our family or our children or our friends, and know that they are secure. Would I like to have different measures in place? Yes, I would. Would I like to have every pilot have the ability to defend himself or herself in the cockpit, the crew, the passengers, and the aircraft? Yes, I would. But this is a compromise, and this body is a body of compromise. We come from all over the Nation with different ideas and different opinions, and we meld them together here, again, hopefully in unity to do the best job possible to protect the American people. So that is what we hope to achieve today. We have heard that there has been some opposition in the past from some in the administration, some bureaucrats. Well, bureaucrats set the rules. We set the policy and the laws, and we will today begin formulating the law based on what we know. We know that we are particularly vulnerable at this time of transition. We have taken an all-private aviation sector and airline-run security system into a federalized system, and it will be several years before we have all of the security measures we would like to see in place. So this is an interim measure; it is a back-up measure. But again, we will have the opportunity to debate. Now, I will say in closing here, I have agreed in a bipartisan fashion with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittee, to oppose any of the amendments that we do not all agree upon, and I think that is a gentleman's commitment that I will keep throughout this debate. There are some good amendments. There are some amendments I would personally favor, but I will oppose them. Again, this is a fair rule and an open rule, and I urge the adoption of the rule.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4635, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

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. 4635.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4481) to amend title 49, United States Code, relating to airport project streamlining, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first, again, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his cooperation and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, for his kind assistance. This legislation is authored by the chair of our full committee, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and it is cooperation of this nature that allows us to move important legislation forward. Although again not very newsworthy or legislation which brings on a great deal of debate and controversy in the House, today we are passing a significant measure which will allow airport streamlining for the approval process that is so important. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this bill saves time and this legislation saves money. This legislation maintains our protections, important protections over the environment, and this legislation maintains important local and State control and authority. I believe it is important to move this legislation forward because it does move our aviation infrastructure projects which are so necessary across the country and particularly in our congested regions of the Nation, and also this is important because it will move our economy forward, which we know is so dependent on aviation and aviation infrastructure. So, with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this legislation and support for H.R. 4481.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the previous chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, one of the current Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairmen.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years, air travel in the United States has grown faster than any other mode of transportation. More and more, our citizens rely on the speed and the convenience of flights in aviation to improve our daily lives. Unfortunately, we, as a nation, have failed to provide the airport capacity necessary to keep pace with the great demand that we have seen grow over the past decades. Last year, the Federal Aviation Administration released a report which revealed for the first time how very far we have fallen behind in meeting our aviation infrastructure needs. According to the report, our Nation's 31 busiest airports are now at or above capacity for some portion of the day. Insufficient airport runway capacity has led to chronic and worsening congestion. Last summer, and before the events of September 11, one out of every four commercial flights experienced a significant delay or cancellation. As air travelers begin to regain confidence in our system, we have already seen the return of traffic in aviation commercial passenger service to pre-September 11 levels. It is not a question of when, Mr. Speaker, or even if; it is a question of how soon gridlock will return to our busiest airports, and we are already seeing that occur. Airports around the Nation must now begin to address the capacity needs that we have seen in the past immediately. We have a little bit of a break here again in regaining our passenger service that we had pre-September 11, so it gives us an opportunity to plan, to prepare, and to meet the aviation infrastructure needs of the future. Unfortunately, standing in the way of moving forward with building our Nation's aviation infrastructure is a very cumbersome Federal review process. That process is full of duplication, it is full of conflicting mandates, and one that, in fact, lacks coordination, lacks accountability, and sometimes wastes years and years of precious time when communities and States are trying to work with the Federal Government to build the aviation infrastructure that our economy and our areas need so desperately. The legislation before us today, H.R. 4481, I believe, will significantly improve the Federal review process for critical airport capacity projects that are under consideration at 31 of our Nation's busiest airports. While this legislation will cut through red tape, it will not in any way diminish existing environmental laws or in any way limit local input or control over these critical projects. I know some Members have expressed concern that when we streamline, we do not want to streamline over local authority and we do not want to streamline over environmental laws that protect the beautiful landscape that we live in and enjoy. So those two features in this legislation that people are concerned about do not exist. We do not harm the environment, nor do we run over local authority. The way this legislation is drafted, it will ensure that once a community has reached a consensus on a critical capacity project, the review process will not unnecessarily delay construction. This bill, in fact, creates a coordinated review process for our major airport capacity projects across the country. It also gives the Secretary of Transportation the responsibility to ensure that all environmental reviews by all government agencies will be conducted at the same time whenever possible, and completed within the deadlines established by the Department of Transportation. H.R. 4481 also binds all Federal and State agencies taking part in a review to the project's ``purpose and need'' as determined by the Department of Transportation under this legislation. It also limits Federal or State agency reviews to the project alternatives that the Secretary of the Department determines are reasonable. Finally, this bill also expedites judicial reviews of Department of Transportation determinations. It moves all claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals and requires all petitions to be filed not later than 60 days after an order is issued with allowances, of course, for special circumstances. I would like to reiterate that nothing in this bill is intended to cut off debate or limit input on the local level in any way. It does not usurp the rights or responsibilities of a State or airport sponsor to carry out an airport project. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent piece of legislation. We have worked together closely with the minority. Both sides of the aisle have been consulted, and we have worked with local and State governments and other stakeholders in this important process; and I think we have a good consensus on an excellent piece of legislation. I urge Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 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. 4481, as amended.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not vote on Roll Calls #247 and #248. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No'' on Roll Call #247 and ``Yes'' on Roll Call #248.

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. 1979, the bill just passed.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. It is a bit controversial in that it does establish a new precedent for use of these funds for operations. We are willing to consider the study provision and reporting back. Small airports are under the gun to raise funds to not only build towers, and this legislation allows them to use part of their AIP money for that purpose, but also to look at the question of using some of those funds again in an unprecedented manner to support operations. So we have no objection. I believe, however, we are asking the vote be called on this particular amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, again, I must speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). We have worked long and hard on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Aviation to achieve a bipartisan agreement on this legislation. I think for the most part we have succeeded. However, on this reimbursement issue, we just do not see eye to eye. I disagree with the underlying premise of the amendment proposed here that for some reason the reimbursement for control tower construction is bad. Our current law allows reimbursement for airport terminal construction. Control towers are certainly at least as important as the terminal buildings. Control towers provide, I believe, one of the most important safety benefits. Airports that have taken the initiative to build them on their own should, in fact, be rewarded. We changed the law in 1996 to be prospective. We made some changes at that point. I am asking that we change the law now as we changed the law on the payment eligibility to be retrospective to the 1996 law. The airports that would be adversely affected by this amendment are relatively small airports. Spending approximately $1 million to build and equip a control tower is a significant burden on them. Although they may not have had a legal right to reimbursement at the time they built the towers, and that was the rule at that point, and we are changing the rules and the law at this point, many were hopeful that when Congress saw fit to make tower construction eligible for these grants, and, again, they have eligibility to use this entitlement money however they wish, that in fact the Congress would help those who have taken the initiative to act. I have letters from at least five airports that say that they were hoping for such a reimbursement at the time that they built their towers; and, in fact, we know that we do them an injustice if we pass this Oberstar amendment. It is also important to note that the airports can only use AIP entitlements for reimbursement. Now, it does not say that they shall be reimbursed. There is no language in here that says they shall be reimbursed or they shall take their $30 million, which may be the amount that that group is entitled to over future years. It is ``may,'' that they ``may.'' It gives them the option. We have opened the option of having towers as being eligible, construction being eligible for payment. All this is saying is that they may use some of the money that they are getting anyway in a discretionary fashion. It does not say that they shall. So we have a bogus argument that $30 million is going to somehow be sucked out of this fund. This is money that the airport has a right to as a matter of law and entitlement. How they use that money should be a part of local control and local decision. Again, that is a fundamental difference. This is a debate about principle. A principle that Washington knows best, one- size-fits-all, we tell you. Now, we may change the rules, but we got you, because you are not going to be eligible, and we shaft some 20 to 22 airports who have already taken the initiative to build their towers. Since this is money that the airport would get in any event, allowing them to use it for reimbursement does not increase the Federal deficit or Federal commitment, financial commitment in any way, nor does it take away from capacity or safety-enhancing projects at any other airports, or even at that airport. They will make the decision on what improvements they want to make in what order, and we give them the ability, but they may. Again an option, we give them an option. Security here and the misuse of these funds by local officials is used purely as a red herring in this debate. The Congress has not decided how we are going to fund transportation safety improvements. Right now there is a supplemental that has not been decided on how we are going to fund security improvements, so I do not buy that argument. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Oberstar amendment, and I ask for its defeat.