John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil Service, one of my major concerns during my tenure has been the problem of the status of veterans in our Federal work force and their treatment. Because of that concern, our subcommittee held a hearing on April 30, 1996, to examine the status of veterans' preference in the Federal work force. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that hearing revealed ample reason for all of us to be concerned about the state of veterans' preference, particularly in our Federal workplace. The testimony at our hearing showed that veterans' preference in the Federal work force is often ignored or circumvented. Its continued viability is in fact threatened by several recent developments, most notably the introduction of single person competition during reductions in force in our Federal Government. But perhaps most important, Mr. Speaker, the hearing revealed a widespread agreement in the veterans' community that veterans do not have an adequate redress mechanism. In fact, both the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans identified this as the No. 1 problem, the major problem Congress should solve. As the House considers this legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to remember the veterans' preference is not a gift. It is in fact a right and an opportunity that our veterans deserve. Congress has a moral obligation to recognize the sacrifices of the men and women of our Armed Forces who have served their country. We called upon them to serve in war and defend this Nation. Now we offer them this opportunity to serve their Nation in peace. This bill, the Veterans' Employment Opportunity Act of 1996, is necessary to ensure that this Nation fulfills that moral obligation. That promise of veterans' preference is indeed a reality in our Federal workplace. It is also the product of a lot of hard work by Members on both sides of the aisle, and this in fact is a truly bipartisan effort. I want to take a moment and thank, first of all, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for his hard work and efforts in making this bill a reality. I would also especially like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana, the Honorable Steve Buyer, chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, Training, Employment and Housing of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He and his staff have worked very hard and long on this bill and cooperated with our subcommittee, and I appreciate their many valuable contributions as well as the outstanding leadership that he and his subcommittee have provided on this and other legislation relating to veterans' issues. I also want to take a moment and thank Chairman Stump of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The gentleman from Arizona has been outstanding in both his cooperation and leadership of all veterans' issues. I also want to pay particular attention and due credit to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jon Fox. Mr. Fox has been a leader in veterans' legislation, particularly the veterans' preference legislation, and in fact wanted to extend the provisions of this act beyond what we are doing today. I give him full credit. Mr. Speaker, I would also just take a personal moment and recognize my brother, who served on the other side of the aisle for 10 years on the Veterans' Committee. Dan Mica showed his dedication to veterans. Part of the commitment of both of the Mica brothers is that 24 years ago this month our father died in a crowded veterans' hospital, so we both have a deep commitment to seeing that our veterans are not only remembered, but also that we honor the rights and obligations that they are due. Mr. Speaker, before I address some of the provisions of this bill in detail, I would like to give a thumbnail sketch of what this bill does for veterans. This bill does in fact provide veterans with an effective, user-friendly redress system. It extends veterans' preference to certain jobs in the legislative branch, also in the judiciary branch, and also at the White House. This bill removes artificial barriers that often bar our service men and women from competing for Federal jobs. These individuals should be able to compete for jobs for which they qualify, just like other Federal employees. This bill provides enhanced protections to veterans in a reduction in force. This legislation requires Federal agencies to establish priority placement programs for employees affected by a RIF, or reduction in force. Federal agencies must give veterans' preference when rehiring employees. This legislation also requires the FAA to apply veterans' preference in any reduction in force, and this legislation provides veterans' preference for service in Bosnia, Croatia, and Macedonia while it is a qualified hazardous duty area, by definition. Mr. Speaker, those are some of the provisions of our bill. I am pleased to present this legislation to the House, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules and a real friend of veterans of this Nation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], also a member of our subcommittee and chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, Training, Employment and Housing of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs who has been a national leader for veterans.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to again thank many individuals, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], and all those others who have provided leadership and cooperation so that we could make this bill a reality. Mr. Speaker, the Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act of 1996 provides much needed protection to our veterans. It provides an effective redress system, and it expands job opportunities for those who have served this Nation honorably in our Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important bill today. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the service of the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Sonny Montgomery, who will be leaving this body soon. He has chaired the Committee on Veterans' Affairs over many years and led the Nation's efforts to recognize and serve its veterans. Mr. Speaker, I urge again the passage of this legislation for all our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 485) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, there have been comments made in the last few days about the proposed reforms that the House passed and the Republicans have promoted. The comments have also dealt with the welfare reforms that we have passed might hurt children, and we have heard comments about some of our reforms in welfare that may in fact, the opinion of some folks, say that we may hurt children. Mr. Speaker, I would not support legislation that would hurt our Nation's children. But I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that our current welfare system is in fact destroying the lives of millions and millions of children. Welfare which in fact was designed to create a safety net has in fact trapped millions of children in a pitiful web and their families in a pitiful web. Let us just look at it for a second. Our current system of welfare has destroyed in fact the traditional family structure, so that children do not even know the meaning of a home and a family. Our current system of welfare has in fact destroyed our children's sense of values. Our current system of welfare has kept our children from understanding the work ethic, the work ethic that in fact has built this Nation. In fact, our current welfare system has kept our children from seeing a parent work. Our current system of welfare makes a joke of a $5.15 minimum wage that this Congress passed, when we in fact pay people in my State in Florida the equivalent of $8.75 an hour for not working. Our current system of welfare has in fact bred crime, crime that has destroyed our neighborhoods, crime that in fact kills our children in this city, has killed thousands of children over the years, young people also trapped in a welfare web. They force our senior citizens and all Americans to live in fear and behind bars. Welfare in fact has served and this current system has served as a magnet to attract illegal aliens into the United States. Our current system of welfare pays better benefits to those who really refuse to work, and pays better benefits to illegal aliens than we in fact pay to some of our senior citizens or to our veterans who served this country. I think that if we really care about the welfare of our children, Mr. Speaker, if we really care about our senior citizens and if we really care about our veterans and we care about the future of this country, we should care about passing meaningful welfare reform. In fact, we passed a welfare reform that says that welfare should not be a way of life, that in fact it should be limited to 2 years and a 5- year lifetime maximum. It is not severe. We said that they should work for some of their benefits, for example, food stamps, put in at least 20 hours' work. We are not talking about disabled or elderly or infirm. We are talking about able-bodied Americans. We think we should return power to the States and restore a sense of personal responsibility when in fact the President's proposal has no real time limits, no real work requirements, non-citizens and felons will continue to receive welfare and we will have maximum control here in Washington. This is the system we have created. I ask, what helps children and what hurts children? We have an opportunity to help children, to change welfare as we know it, and to make a dramatic change in the lives of millions and millions of citizens of our country and children in our country who deserve much better than the welfare system that they currently have. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we adopt our plan, that the President in fact not veto this plan for the third time, and that it become in fact the law of our land to help our children, not hurt our children.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from Maine and also the gentleman from Georgia for cooperating in this compromise. The gentleman from Georgia has private investors who have invested in an airport in my district and the gentleman from Maine has some problems with what Customs has interpreted in this situation, and I think that this is a good compromise. It is a placeholder and it allows us to deal with Customs. We do not want to cut their budget. What we want to do is get a proper resolution of this problem, and this is, in fact, a placeholder so that Maine, Georgia, and Florida can work this problem out. Hopefully we will not hurt Maine or the new airport in the Orlando-Sanford area. So I thank my colleagues for working out this compromise and support the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], and urge its adoption.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his cooperation in this matter.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the practice of the Office of Personnel Management of turning over Federal employees' home addresses to labor organizations. This practice I believe is an egregious violation of the privacy of Federal employees. On April 17, 1996, OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, put into effect a proposal to give bargaining unit employees home addresses to the labor unions. This was instituted despite a 1994 Supreme Court decision that held in fact that the Privacy Act prohibited unions from obtaining the home addresses of Federal employees under the Freedom of Information Act. To get around the Supreme Court decision, OPM created what is called a routine use under the Privacy Act. Documents show that the administration lawyers developed this method of evading the Supreme Court's ruling in response to a request from the Vice President. In light of what I consider the improper and unjustified collection of FBI files of former White House Republican staffers and the release of employees' home addresses, it appears to me that this wholesale invasion of Federal employees' privacy is now becoming the administration's policy. Unfortunately, according to a letter sent to the president of the American Federation of Government Employees by the Director of Office of Management and Budget, Alice Rivlin, the administration in fact intends that all other agencies will be releasing the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees. I commend the gentleman, the chairman, for his distinguished service, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], and for including in the report language in this bill language that expresses his concern about the violation of Federal employees' privacy. However, I urge the gentleman to further address this issue in the conference committee in light of the seriousness of this practice. It may in fact be necessary to include a statutory prohibition against this practice. I was prepared to offer an amendment today, and I am not going to do that because of the cooperation of the chairman. I would ask if he would be willing to consider proposing that statutory language be included in the conference committee.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to replace the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] on the list of 5-minute special orders.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, I serve on the committee that has been dealing with the FBI files misuse question and also serve on the subcommittee that deals with our national drug policy, and until today I never thought that the two issues would meet until I sat and heard the testimony of those who work for our Secret Service and viewed the proceedings in the White House. What I learned was most disturbing and concerns me as a citizen, as a Congressman, and someone who has always held the White House in the highest respect. It is the Chief Executive Office of our land. First, we heard the tales of an admitted drug user who ended up as the chief personnel security officer for the White House, an unbelievable tale in the White House Legal Office of ignoring the details of this individual's past in placing him in such an important position. I have come to the House and talked with my colleagues and tried to call to the attention of the Congress and the country the situation with drug abuse and use and the lack of leadership from the White House, and today it really struck home what has been happening. First, we saw the President take office, and then in a startling move, he cut the White House drug czar's office. He cut the staffing in the White House of the drug czar's office by 85 percent. That did not make sense. Then he cut drug interdiction programs, decimated them, that stopped drugs at their source countries, and that did not make sense and I wondered why. And then the President appointed as the chief health officer for the Nation, the Surgeon General, an individual who said to our children and the American public, ``Just say maybe. Maybe drugs are OK.'' And that did not make sense and I wondered why. Now I see this pattern of people who are in the White House, and most disturbing we learn today that the situation got so bad with people coming in that even the Secret Service, and these are people coming in with drug use and abuse histories, and some, it appears, current activities, that, in fact, the Secret Service demanded that some action be taken. And only after, through what has been called some remedial action, instituting a program within the White House, was something done. This administration has talked about regulating cigarettes and the harmful effects of nicotine, and this, I am afraid, has been a diversion. The real question is what has been happening with drugs, and we can look at the results. The results are that marijuana use among our children, our children, 50 percent a year each year since this administration took office. These are not idle statistics. These are facts. If we look at what is happening, this chart shows here that in 1980 is when President Reagan just said no to drug use, and President Bush, and drug use with our children dropped. Here in 1992, it starts going up, and we see why. Cocaine, heroin, designer drugs are at epidemic proportions with our young people, 8th, 10th, 12th grades, and we see that the lack of leadership is the lack of a policy in the Chief Executive Office of this land. If you are a parent, you should be concerned. Our children's drug use is dramatically up. If you are a minority, you should be concerned. Our jails are packed with minorities. In Washington, DC, we have a record number of killings. And throughout our land, every time you turn on the news you see the mayhem created by drugs, and 70 percent of those in prisons today are there because of a drug-related incident, and the President has failed to mention this or make this a priority. Let me cite this statistic here. He gave 1,628 statements in 1993 and only mentioned drugs 13 times. In 1994 he gave 1,742 Presidential statements and only referred to drug use or drug abuse 11 times. We see this pattern that has not been a priority of this President. It has not been a priority of this White House. What we must have is a President that will lead this Nation and people in the Chief Executive Office of this land to lead by example.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I present this amendment today. It is slightly different than what was printed. I had hoped to increase this amount by $40 million; however, I have changed the amendment to $20 million. Let me tell my colleagues what my amendment does today, and it is probably one of the most important amendments on this bill and dealing with education in particular. What this does is it, in fact, transfers from Washington bureaucracy to the local classroom education dollars. What we in the Congress do and what we are doing through this appropriations procedure is, in fact, deciding how the resources of our Nation and the Congress get allocated to different programs. This is an important amendment because it is part of the fundamental debate about what we have been talking about in Congress during this entire session. It is a fundamental question. It is not just how much money we throw at various problems and how much money we expend, but how we expend the money. That is the fundamental part of my amendment. Let me tell my colleagues, I chair the House Subcommittee on Civil Service, and I know where the bureaucrats and the bodies are buried throughout our nearly 2 million employee Federal work force. There are 5,000 employees in the Department of Education, 5,000, and then thousands of other contract employees. Of the 5,000 full-time employees in the Department of Education, 68 percent are in Washington, DC. What this amendment does is it does not cut any money from any programs, it does not cut any money for education, but what it does is it transfers some of that money that we as a Congress are appropriating and it transfers it from the bureaucracy and administrative account in Washington, DC, to the classroom. That is what this debate is all about. This is not a debate on exactly how we can spend all the money and the regulations that come out of the Department of Education, and I cannot change that because this is an appropriations bill, and I would like to change some of the way we authorize the money. But what this does is it addresses a fundamental question. Do we spend the money up here on a big Federal education bureaucracy or do we send the money to the classrooms, when we have instances where some of our classrooms do not have the resources, they do not have the materials, they do not have the teachers? We have a clear responsibility in this Congress to make these important choices, and that is the choice this amendment gives us today. Do we spend it here in Washington on the 68 percent of the employees of the 5,000 who are located in Washington, DC or does that money go back into our local classrooms? This is a very, very fundamental debate. I want to take a minute and talk a little bit more about what we are doing with education. I hear from parents all the time. I talk to my community college presidents. When we have students who cannot read their diplomas, when we have 71 percent of the students in one of my local community colleges entering that require remedial education, when we have a situation in education that I consider a crisis, when we have to put police and others in our classroom and fire other teachers and do not have the money for the resources that we need in our classroom, we, as a Congress, have an important responsibility to make these choices of where that money is spent. So this is a simple amendment. it is a clear choice. Do we spend the money in Washington on bureaucrats and a large Department of Education? I am not cutting the Department of Education. We will still have a Department of Education. But what we are doing is taking $20 million and we are putting it into title I programs, the programs that are really in our classrooms, that affect our children and their education. So we are going to decide by my amendment whether we put those resources again in Washington or in the local classroom where our students and our teachers are really at the bottom end of the feeding chain, because we have built a huge bureaucracy, not just the 5,000 in Washington, DC, but we have exploded that bureaucracy to regional offices and then to State offices.

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

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up a couple of points. First, the gentleman from Maryland who launched into the debate, first of all, I oversee the Federal work force as chairman, at least from the House side, as chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee, and I greatly respect the efforts of our Federal employees throughout our Federal work force. But we have the neighborhood of 350,000 Federal employees within my speaking voice here in the Washington, DC area. And they do too have to experience some downsizing. The Department of Education in the past year has had a 1-percent decrease. I heard the ranking member talk about the actual number of decreases in full-time employees and he is correct, but we have examined this in the Civil Service Subcommittee and seen where thousands and thousands of employees have been contracted out. And that is one of the problems that we have. But the question here is now a cut of probably about 300 positions in the Department of Education, which would be between an 8- and 10- percent cut of the Washington work force in Washington, DC. I tell my colleagues that through normal attrition we lose between 6 and 7 percent, people who die or retire or go on to other positions. So I think this can be managed. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member's agreement to accept this amendment and support this amendment. And I also thank the chairman for his support of this amendment, also the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], and other Members, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough], and the 20 or 30 Members who are prepared to come out here and talk in favor of it.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, Brian William McVeigh, Airman First Class, U.S. Air Force, was born in Sanford, FL and a resident of Debary, FL. Airman McVeigh was killed in a terrorist attack in Dhahran, Saudia Arabia June 25, 1996. The following are remarks by U.S. Congressman John L. Mica at his memorial service at the Trinity Assembly of God Church in Deltona, FL on July 3, 1996: We come together as loved ones, neighbors and Christians to recall the life of Brian McVeigh. We come together today to honor the service of Brian McVeigh to his country. How honored am I as Brian's Congressman to be asked to help pay tribute to his memory. However, as my first responsibility I must on behalf of the entire Florida congressional delegation and on behalf of all the citizens of our community and State extend my deepest sympathy to Brian's family and loved ones. To Brian's parents and especially his mother Sandy Wetmore, I cannot think of any greater sacrifice than for a mother to loose a son in service to his country. To Brian's loved ones and his fiance--we as a community share your grief. To Brian's friends we as a community mourn your loss. To the terrorist who cowardly took Brian and 18 other Americans from us we will not rest until justice is served. Today we gather as a family, friends, and a community to remember Brian's sacrifice and death in service to our country. Tomorrow, ironically we celebrate the anniversary of the birth of our Nation. Without the service and sacrifice of patriots and heroes like Brian McVeigh there would be no Independence Day. There would be no America as we know it. So today we recall as we have for 220 years that freedom has never been free. Today we honor a modern patriot, Brian McVeigh for his life, his service, and his love. Brian's life should be a reminder of a comment he was said to have made, that ``He wanted to give something back to this country.'' Brian's service to his country should be remembered by us all, for he placed it before his own life and he sacrificed his life in service to all Americans. Brian's love we celebrate together today, his love for his mother, his love for his fiance and family and his love for his God and his country. The sad part about today is that we cannot have one brief moment as loved ones to tell Brian how much we cared. The sad part about today is that we cannot have one moment as friends and a community to tell Brian how much his service to our Nation meant to each of us. The wonderful thing about today is we have Brian's life to remember as an example to all of us. So as we gather this week to celebrate our Nation's birth and everyday and every holiday, let us remember Brian and all the other patriots whose memory we must always cradle in our hearts. Let us remember our hero, Brian McVeigh. May God bless Brian and God bless America.

Mr. MICA

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

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the gentleman and thankful for his cooperation earlier on another amendment, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It does, however, create some problems because it creates a new title in the bill and actually some new authorization and will be called out of order, but I think it is important that we offer this amendment. I am a strong supporter of Head Start, and Head Start should give our least advantaged children a head start in their education. The way I got involved in this is in a simple manner. One of the Head Start programs in central Florida, one of the parents who was involved in it came to me and said the Head Start program is not running well, it is disorganized, and they are spending a lot of money. So I started looking into it to answer some of the constituents' complaints and concerns about how a child was faring in this program, and I really was startled to find that in a Head Start program in central Florida that serves two counties, that in fact we spend a total of $7,325 per student; that is local cost, that when one thinks the children had a head start with a certified teacher, that in fact there are 25 teachers in the program and 25 aides, not one certified teacher, and yet the program has almost 25 administrators for the program. Now, the administrators in this program earn from about $20,000 to $50,000. The uncertified teachers make from $12,000 to about $16,000. And I thought it was time that we brought some of this administrative overhead to a halt and started concentrating on the quality of education in these programs so indeed we give our children a head start. So that is the purpose of my amendment. It would create a demonstration program that would allow us to in fact have a Head Start program without all of this overhead, without all of this administrative cost, without all of this bureaucracy. So it is a simple amendment. It takes Head Start. It allows Head Start, on a demonstration project basis, to proceed without the high administrative costs and overhead, and hopefully it can meet the intent of Head Start, which is to give our children a quality education.