John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the House legislation, and our proposal, calls for Federal takeover of airport security. We admit there are defects in the present system and that no longer will the airlines, under our legislation, handle the issue of airport security. The House proposal also requires Federal supervision of the screening process and the whole security plan. The Federal background checks are also required under our legislation, Federal testing and Federal oversight. Let me just read from what the gentleman who I consider an expert, James E. Hall, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 until earlier this year, just said. He said, ``Far too much time has been spent on the issues of screeners. We have got to address everything in the system.'' A comprehensive plan is so important. That is what we need to develop. We need to do it in a hurry. That is why I support the motion before us.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), one of our senior members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of Members tonight. I know Members want to go back to their districts and see their constituents and their families. If there has been any delay in this legislation, blame me. Earlier I took the podium on the other side of the aisle, and I said that I pledge to work in a bipartisan manner; and I have tried to do that and have done that at all times with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Members on my side of the aisle, I want Members to know what a great human being the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is. I came as a freshman and learned so much from the gentleman. He is a tremendous individual, and he put his heart and soul into working with us. Because of some other circumstances, we were not allowed to come forward with our legislation, and we all know sometimes politics gets in the way. But let me tell Members the most outstanding legacy that we can provide as Members of Congress to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) would be to get this right, to do this right. They tried this in 1996, and they did not get this right. They tried again with another act in 2000, and we did not get it right. This time when Members go back tomorrow and look in the eyes of their constituents, who sent us here to do the very best job we can do, we can do nothing but the very best as far as aviation and transportation security. We have to get it right. Unfortunately, the provision by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the motion to recommit will carry this transition process on for a year. Just look at the language. Our proposal is 3 months. We give the President the flexibility that he asked for and that he can deliver. We say the employees may be Federal employees, and we give him that discretion. We clearly set forth responsibilities in this legislation that are so important. The rulemaking provision that is so important must be in the final legislation. Mr. Speaker, everyone who voted on the manager's amendment must understand that those provisions will be wiped out. The provisions for New York asked for by the Governor of New York, the provisions for New York that Mayor Giuliani asked for will be wiped out. If you have general aviation in your district that is floundering because it has been closed down, the assistance that is in our provisions only will be wiped out. All the corrections that were made to the Senate legislation will be wiped out, so we will not get the best product in the end. I pledge to work with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), with Minority Leader Gephardt, with everyone in the House, if it takes us day and night, and I sat with the President today. He said he is willing to wait until we get it right. So I urge you to get it right this time. We owe this to the American people. We have already had the issue solved in the last vote. Let us not go into a motion to recommit and delay this process forward. Let us work together and let us do the best we can for the people who sent us here.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, again, I will try to set the record straight. The gentleman from Maine who spoke earlier talked about the need to establish some type of an exchange of information; and it is true, the Senate bill does establish that. However, it does not provide that the information go to the airlines. The airlines are the only ones that have the passenger list. In their haste to pass this legislation, the other body left out the provision to require a passenger list from foreign carriers; and in today's paper, it looks like those in the other body are trying to correct that deficiency. The gentlewoman from Texas talked about cockpit doors and air marshals. The President has already ordered that. That is under way; it is in all of the pieces of legislation. In fact, the cockpit doors, Secretary Mineta told me, in all major aircraft will be in by November 7 and air marshals are being put in place every day.

Mr. MICA. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just in response. Mr. Chairman, we have 323 INS inspectors at the Canadian border, but we will have 31,000 Federal screening agents. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), one of the senior members on the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and also a former FBI agent.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), one of the distinguished members of our Subcommittee on Aviation. (Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader of the House.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that this is an abundantly fair rule. It does give the minority two shots at the proposal. It does give them the opportunity to bring up in toto the Senate-passed language, as they requested. The legislation that we have proposed on the House side, the majority side, in comments that were made by the previous speaker on the other side that it is important that we protect trains and planes and other modes of transportation, in fact the legislation that we are presenting here today is the most comprehensive security package, not only giving responsibility, which is so important, but, unlike the Senate proposal, it also gives the authority to deal with some of the problems. In fact, today's newspaper points out one of the problems we have had in the past with security or even dealing with defects of aviation, and this is in today's Washington Post. This talks about the Value Jet crash which took place in 1996. It says: ``In fact, Federal regulations were later strengthened to crack down on passenger flights carrying hazardous waste.'' Why am I pointing this out? Because the Senate bill, the bill proposed by the other side, does nothing to deal with giving authority to deal with regulations relating to security. That is the major flaw in this proposed piece of legislation. The other side has said some 20 Members presented before the Committee on Rules. I participated in the Committee on Rules procedures. I will say many of the proposals from the other side have been incorporated into the manager's amendment. We have tried to accommodate those requests, including probably one of the strongest provisions for checked baggage, which was also pointed out by the other side that baggage is not checked. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) on the other side, who has done such a good job in promoting this strong provision, certainly would prefer our legislative proposal, which is the strongest ever proposed anywhere in Congress and contained in our manager's amendment, and we modeled it partly after his recommendation. So, no, good ideas have not been left out. This process has not been a partisan issue. I have worked with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman on the other side, the ranking member, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). We have worked together in a bipartisan fashion; and they know in their heart of hearts that the bill proposed by the majority, they agree with 100 percent, with the exception of one part, and that is, shall all of the employees who are baggage screeners be Federal employees. What is sad about the proposal on the other side is, not only will this create a disjointed and dysfunctional security mechanism for airports, a lack of authority to deal specifically with other modes of transportation, which is so important in this time of crisis, but I have a letter from the Department of Justice, and the legislation from the other side actually will inhibit their ability to function. The Department of Justice, let me read from their letter to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our chairman: ``Unlike the Department of Justice, DOT has both the broad transportation-related statutory mandate and nearly 35 years of significant operational experience with transportation regulation, infrastructure, security and enforcement. Further, DOT's two components of law enforcement authority, the United States Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration, possess a unique infrastructure of law enforcement personnel and expertise with broad domestic enforcement authority upon which the Congress can build and enhance DOT's law enforcement authority and responsibility.'' Listen to this. They say: ``In light of DOT's strong capabilities and DOJ's many responsibilities in fighting the war on terrorism, we feel that our resources would be better spent in carrying out our current mission than developing a new transportation infrastructure and expertise.'' So here we have the proposal from the other side, which actually will impede the Department of Justice mission which they have, and it will not do it in a small way, it will do it in an incredible way. The Congressional Budget Office submitted to me today the proposal that it is not 28,000 additional employees; it is some 31,000 additional Federal employees. So you can go home and tell your constituents what we did is created the biggest bureaucracy in the history of a generation, the biggest bureaucracy, 31,000 Federal employees, as a cure-all, and the Department of Justice has said in fact that you are interfering with our mission and they have no expertise to deal with this. We have created a two-tier system, which is the most disjointed approach to security that we could possibly have to guarantee the safety of the flying public. So I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and to consider very carefully what legislation is before them. When all else fails, my colleagues, read the bill. This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen in 20 years in working on Capitol Hill. It was sent here in a hurry, almost immediately, so we could correct it. Now we need to do that. We cannot pass this failed piece of legislation.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, when all else fails, why do we not consult the facts? We have heard Members stand up and say that we would not contract out security responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I will submit that 26 Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, our nuclear plants, all contracted out 26 Federal agencies. The list goes on. Mr. Speaker, this deals with facts. In fact, we do contract this out. We are not asking for any different level. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to please not come before the Congress and the American people and tell them that we are protecting those private screening companies that are now doing their job. We take this responsibility away from the airlines, we make it a Federal responsibility. It is federally managed, it is federally supervised. There are Federal background checks. There is Federal testing. Most importantly, there is Federal oversight. The Israelis, the Europeans, tried the federalize-all-public- employees method, and what did they do? They eventually evolved into a public-private partnership where the government sets the high standards, and that is what we have proposed. Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the facts. The facts are, this piece of legislation proposed and hastily passed by the Senate creates a two- tier disastrous system, part in the Department of Justice, part in the Department of Transportation. It creates two tiers of law enforcement and leaves law enforcement in the Department of Transportation. It is a disaster. Mr. Speaker, if we want to pass something in a hurry, yes, we can run up here and tell people we have created 31,000 Federal positions. Yet, they do not have any authority to deal with the problem. Mr. Speaker, what is even more amazing, Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to read again today's Washington Post. See what is being proposed in the Senate. They are already trying to correct the mess that they passed here. If we look at one of the provisions of this legislation, and again, I defy the Members, read the bill, they set up an information-sharing for the intelligence system, but they do not share it with the airlines. Who has the passengers list? The airlines. There is no provision in their bill for that. There is no provision to require all airlines who have passenger lists, for international flights coming into the United States to provide that. That is in our bill. So their bill is a weak, hastily- prepared piece of legislation that would cause untold turmoil and not do the job. The American people want us to do it right, even if it takes a little longer. We passed legislation in 1996 on airline security and blew it. We passed legislation in 2000, and we still do not have rules in place. There were no rules in place for box cutters. The biggest flaw, and do not talk about Federal employment, the biggest flaw with the bill proposed by the Senate and the other side is that it has no ability to execute on an immediate basis putting in place rules and regulations. There were no rules September 11 by Federal employees or Federal agencies to prohibit box cutters. There were no rules to get standards in place for baggage screeners. For 6 years we have been waiting, and this bill will do nothing after this if they pass that bill. It is a shame. It is a sham. Read the bill. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, let me just again try to set the record straight. We heard speakers say that these screeners, and they continue to pick on sort of the lowest end of the feeding chain here, the lowest paid, were at fault on September 11. My fellow colleagues, our intelligence system and Federal employees involved in intelligence failed. We did not know who the hijackers were. Our Federal employees who issued visas failed, because most of the hijackers came into this country with visas issued by Federal Government employees. Our FAA failed because we had no rules in place for box cutters. We have no provision for expedited rulemaking in the Senate bill, and that is the biggest flaw. It takes, on average, 3.8 years to pass a rule through the Department of Transportation. Look at the bill. They leave technology with the Department of Transportation; 3.8 years to get in place technology that will do the job. It will not work.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I came over to this side of the aisle to respond to the last speaker's comments of why this bill has taken so long. I will tell Members why: because I served in the minority, and some people when I was in the minority on the majority side treated me fairly, like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), who I still respect to this day. Others treated me unfairly and never let me be heard. I made a determination if I ever had any position of authority in this House, I would treat everybody in a bipartisan, fair manner and hear all of the individuals, regardless of when they came to Congress or what their stand was; and I did that. Mr. Chairman, we held extensive hearings day after day, week after week; and we stayed there and heard from every expert throughout the country so we could develop the very best bipartisan bill possible; and we came within one word of doing that, and I acted in a bipartisan fashion. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for working with me. That is why the bill took so long. We did make every effort, and we tried to be fair and open and develop the best security measure for the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I return to this side of the aisle, and not returning to a partisan side, I want to return to the factual side. First we heard the minority leader give an eloquent speech, and I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Missouri; but he said the people failed, the screeners failed, and he talked about pocketknives. Mr. Chairman, FAA set the standards. Up to 4-inch pocketknives were allowed. The screeners who were in place, in fact, were dealing with laws which had been passed by Federal employees by the FAA. Box cutters, there were no FAA restrictions on box cutters on September 11. We heard the minority speaker say we can get about buying machines. Let me show one of the flaws. Read the bill. I beg Members to read the bill. This bill on page 23, line 7, leaves the technology with the approval of the administrator of FAA. Part of the problem we had on September 11 is we could not get the best technology possible in place. In fact, this language prohibits this type of technology because it says nonintrusive. This is the kind of technology that is available. We have 1970s and 1980s X-ray equipment. That is what we will have tomorrow if we pass the substitute that is proposed. This equipment can detect plastics, and we know plastic knives were something smuggled on board. This bill on the Senate side gives us a worse position than we were in on September 10, and it leaves technology in a terrible position. We have heard if it is good enough for Congress, it should be good enough for the American people. I tell Members the ads that are being put on television by various groups are unfair. What we are proposing, every Member of Congress, their families, my children, my wife, will all be required to go through the same type of security. Read the bill on the other side. It creates a two-tier system. Look at page 17 and look at who is responsible. A two-tier system. Look at page 22. There are 141 levels of security at some airports and law enforcement, and 319 small airports are relegated to possible Barney Fife-type enforcement. What is ironic about their bill, and read the bill, I am not kidding. It leaves law enforcement in the Department of Transportation, just the opposite of what the other side intended to do. Technology remains with FAA, read the bill; law enforcement remains with the Department of Transportation. We can hire Ph.D.s to do screening. They are only as good as the equipment. They are only as good as the rules put in place. I defy anyone, come up here and show me one place where there is the ability to pass a rule that needs to be passed. The problem with airline security is that we cannot get a rule in place. We cannot get a rule to buy the latest technology. There is no provision in the Senate bill, so Members are worse off than they were on September 10 because there is no ability to get the best technology in place. Look at the provisions for the Under Secretary of Security and Transportation. We deal with all of these things, and we delineate them with a clear line of authority. This bifurcates it. The Department of Justice says they cannot handle it. In fact, they issued a letter and said it will interfere with their main responsibility right now, which is to deal with terrorism. This is their letter. This is what they said. The bill from the Senate side will actually deter their efforts to deal with terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I defy anyone in the House to take this bill and diagram this bill as to how it will work. We tried to do this. It is not only bifurcated with different levels of responsibility between different agencies and different levels between big airports and small airports, it would create a maze. The argument that we do not use private contractors, this is a list of 20-some agencies, including Department of Defense, all of our nuclear facilities and on and on, we use contract security personnel with high standards and high qualifications, as we propose in our bill. When Members go back, I want them to tell their constituents what they did if Members pass the Senate bill. It is no longer 28,000; it is 31,000 according to Congressional Budget Office, who has looked at the bill from the other side. Other protective services, Federal protective services, 442 employees. What failed was not the baggage screeners which we can all pick on because they are lowly paid now, and our bill changes that system. We have Federal oversight of the entire program. We have Federal management and Federal supervision and Federal testing and Federal background checks. And most importantly, we have Federal oversight of the whole program. If we want to put Federal employees someplace, there are only 4,087 United States marshals. I called the visa section and asked how many people are there issuing visas. Mr. Atta got a visa from a Federal employee. We can put people with Ph.D.s, and Mr. Atta, if he was given a visa and passport approval to come into the United States, would get in under the Senate measure. Border patrol, we only have 323 border patrol people in Canada. This is where we should be putting our Federal employees and resources. I chaired the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization for 4 years. I tried to get performance standards for Federal employees. We passed it in the House, and it failed in the Senate. If we want high standards, it is impossible to do it in the Congress; but it is possible to have the best possible people with a private-public partnership with high standards, high qualifications and put those provisions in place. The choice is clear, my colleagues; and I hope Members put politics aside and put security for all traveling Americans in the forefront.