Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.

First of all, I want to speak on the rule. That is what this particular issue is about, the resolution before us to debate this important piece of legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my classmate. We were elected together. We served at times under a regime when rules were not open, when you did not even get an opportunity to present in a fair manner your opposition. I commend both the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from Ohio for their operation of a Rules Committee that gives everybody a fair opportunity to be heard.

As we have heard the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), say, this is a fairly noncontroversial measure. It is an important measure because it does address safety at our small airports. We heard the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), cite instances where unfortunately many of our aviation accidents are at small airports that do not have one of the most important features, which is an air traffic control tower, in their facilities. It is an important issue, and it would be noncontroversial except for one or two possible amendments. The most difficult of those amendments, which has again been given an opportunity to be heard here on the floor in open fairness and debate, is the Oberstar amendment.

But let me speak just a moment about the legislation. The legislation was crafted in a very fair and reasonable fashion, I believe, and that is to provide assistance to these small airports to put in part of their facility. Runways may be important and safety lights may be important and other infrastructure improvements at our small aviation and general aviation facilities may be important; but, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than an air traffic control tower.

This particular legislation makes possible using basically entitlement money, aviation improvement fund moneys which are available, some of it is capped for smaller airports, some of it is based on passenger revenue for other commercial facilities, but that is money that really is an entitlement to these local airports to use in an optional manner. This is an option in the manner in which they think is best and best serves safety purposes. Certainly nothing can be a bigger safety measure than an air traffic control tower. That, we all agree upon.
The issue that is in debate is whether those small communities who have dipped into their own pocket and taken the initiative to make a major safety improvement and expend their own funds can make a determination as to whether they want to use their future funds which they are entitled to, anyway, for reimbursement. What could be a fairer presentation? And not to cut off these communities who have taken an initiative, who have looked out for the most important interest, and that is the safety of the pilots and the aircraft and passengers coming into these smaller airports. Nothing can be a better utilization of funds. Why should we as Congress, why should we in Washington tell these communities what they can do with their funds when they already have the option of spending them in any manner in which they make the improvement?

The Members that may be listening, Mr. Speaker, from Arizona, from California, from Colorado, from Florida, from Georgia, from Idaho, from Illinois, from Indiana, from Kansas, from Louisiana, also from Minnesota, from Mississippi, from Missouri, from New Hampshire, from Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and other States will be entitled to use their funds for this. Why should we penalize those from the States of Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, North Carolina, Maryland, Florida, Wyoming, Arizona, Connecticut, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Oklahoma and others who have taken the initiative? This is a fairness issue. This is not an egregious misuse, as we have heard it termed, of funds. It is a fairness issue to all the Members and to all the local communities and to safety improvements in these small airports across our Nation.

The rule is fair. It could not be a fairer rule, to take time to debate this issue on which we disagree. We agree on the larger part. I have worked with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He is one of the champions in the House of safety and the transportation improvements, infrastructure improvements across the Nation. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member, he does an excellent job working together. We disagree on this one issue. I view this as a fairness issue. I view this as a Washington knows best, knows all and will-tell-you-exactly-how-to-do-it issue, and that is not fair.

Let us be fair. I think we need to oppose the Oberstar amendment. We need to first pass this rule which again allows for open, free, fair debate. Again I commend the Rules Committee on that. I ask first that we pass the rule and then that we oppose the Oberstar amendment and that we allow again local governments to do what they know is best and that is make those safety improvements and not be penalized for having made good decisions in the past.

... Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
As we sum up the debate on the rule, again, I think this is a fair rule, as the major question under consideration, the major amendment that will be before us has been given the opportunity for full, open, fair consideration in a responsible fashion by the Committee on Rules. So I ask my colleagues to support this, again, fair rule. If anyone knows of any amendments that were not allowed to be considered, come forth now and speak, but otherwise forever hold your peace, because this was done in a fair and open manner.

The major amendment that will be considered and the major controversy on an otherwise noncontroversial bill is again the question of reimbursement. I cannot think of anything more classic than this issue. This has been the debate since the beginning of this Republic, and that is how much power should be made in Washington, if Washington knew best or local people knew best.

Did my colleagues hear the plea of the last freshman representative, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman)? He came up and he said that the local representatives, the local people knew best what to do with their funds. That is the basic question here: Do local people know how to use their funds?

Then we heard someone from the opposing side say, "use up all of `their' money.'' That is really what we are talking about. It is their money, and letting them make their decisions, and tie up their funds, again using the term used by the other side, for 8 or 10 years. Well, heaven forbid that Washington should let local representatives, local elected officials, and local communities decide on how to use their money.

...Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we also heard from the other side "unqualified project.'' I wrote it down and I put quotes around this, "to fund and pay for an unqualified project.''
Now, if anyone knows of any air traffic control tower that has been built, again, we heard the other side say that they are built with FAA approval, if they know an unqualified project, I want them to come forward and present it before the House at this time, because it is my understanding, and again the other side has said that these are FAA-approved towers, and they would have to be FAA-approved towers to be built for air traffic control purposes, but they were termed as "unqualified projects.'' I think that is unfair, because a local community has produced a qualified project, taken a local initiative, and then they want to decide what to do with their money in the future. If it is to pay off the wise decision that they made in the past, why should we in Washington stand in their way?

Then, one other issue that was brought up here about the use of AIP funds from the distinguished ranking member on the subcommittee, and he said, this could harm the use of AIP funds for security improvements. Well, I say to my colleagues, we are in very bad shape if we use all of our AIP funds when Washington dictates for security improvements and require local governments to make those improvements in these local communities.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on this side.

...Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just comment in general on this legislation, and it is noncontroversial for the most part. It is legislation which will allow our small airports to receive Federal grants to build air traffic control towers. The construction of a control tower at these small airports provides important safety benefits, as controllers in the tower prevent planes from running into one another. So there is probably no more important use of Federal funds or funds from the AIP fund.

Many small airports have commercial air service or are active for general aviation facilities, but at some of these airports there is today no air traffic control tower. This means that there are no air traffic control controllers to guide planes safely through the sky or along the runways. Pilots are on their own, responsible for themselves and for seeing and avoiding other planes.

Unlike larger airports across the country where the FAA will build a tower, smaller airports will only get a tower if they build it themselves. Yet many lack the resources to do so, and that is why this legislation is important. We change the law, we change the rules, and we allow the Federal assistance in that effort.

The Federal assistance will come entirely from the Airport Improvement Program, and the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, is funded by taxes on airline passenger and other aviation users. No general taxpayer funds will be used to support this program.

Currently, the AIP program is used to pay for a variety of infrastructure improvements at our airports but air traffic control tower construction, unfortunately, is not one of them, despite the obvious safety benefits provided by air traffic control.

This bill will allow primary passenger airports to use their AIP entitlements to build control towers. General aviation airports could use both their AIP entitlements as well as their AIP money allocated to the States for this particular purpose. In addition, limited reimbursement would be allowed for airports that have taken the initiative to build towers prior to the date of enactment.

We believe that is a fairness issue. The minority has an amendment that will be heard in opposition, and we will get into the details of our opposition to the amendment they are proposing to strike this particular reimbursement provision.

This is a bill that will increase safety at many of our smaller airports across the country. It is entirely voluntary. No airport is required to use their grant money to build a tower, but for those who want to use it, for those who have made the improvement on a limited basis, it will provide important safety benefits and Federal assistance in making those improvements.

The bill was developed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a bipartisan fashion and, again, except for the reimbursement issue, has broad bipartisan support, and I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) for taking the initiative in introducing this important legislation.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who worked closely with the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), on the issue. I would also like to thank the ranking member of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for helping to move this legislation along.

I urge the passage of the legislation without the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

...Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, we are winding up the general debate on this bill, and it is a good bill. It is a good bill in its present form, and the present form allows for fairness.

We have heard some things said by the other side in opposition to the current form of this legislation, and most of it deals with the question of reimbursement.

First of all, one must understand that there are some people in Congress who think that Washington knows best, that Washington must dictate exactly what every local government, every local entity, should do.

Now, we are talking about funds here that these communities and airports would be entitled to, and we set certain parameters. We have set certain parameters in the past as to what projects would be eligible. Towers were not eligible.

We are today, with the passage of this legislation, changing those rules. We told them in the past, you build a tower, and we will man the tower. At that time you could not use AIP funds for construction of those towers. We are changing that rule now. No, I do not want to participate in "gotcha'' legislation. This is not fair. It is just a question of fairness.

There are 22 airports that could benefit from the reimbursement provision. There are 48 airports that will benefit by us changing the rule and allowing AIP funds to be used for construction of towers. We today are changing the rule.

This question about $30 million that is going to be somehow wasted or given away unfairly, blah, blah, blah, they are going to get that money anyway. They are entitled to that money. The question is, what can they use it on? If they have already made the safety improvement, why should we penalize them? It is not fair.

It was said by the other side that someone is going to get a windfall. No one is getting a windfall. They are going to get those funds anyway. It is an entitlement. But Washington does not always know best.

You heard them say they signed a contract with their eyes wide open. Yes, they signed the agreement, but that was the terms of how you could use the money then, and we are changing the rules now as to how you can use the money.

So is it fair to shaft 22 who have taken the initiative and acted? They can decide how they want to spend that money in the future. If they want to spend it on a safety improvement they made in the past, which we are allowing these 48 others to benefit by, why not?
Come on. As we heard the other side say, this is a matter of principle. Yes, it is a matter of principle. It is a matter of Washington knowing best, Washington dictating to these local governments. And we heard the pleas. We heard the pleas from the small communities. We heard the pleas from the gentleman from Illinois and the tragedy that occurred and the steps that were taken by his communities. We heard the pleas from the gentleman from Arkansas. We heard the pleas from the gentleman from Montana with the fire situation, the need for air traffic control.

Why should these people be penalized in a "gotcha'' approach? It is not fair. This is a question of fairness. Pass the legislation as it is currently formulated, and let us vote down, when we get to it, the Oberstar amendment, which is, in fact, a matter of principle.