Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I will tell my dear friend, Chairman Latham, that we agree on one thing, and this is the notion that this is not a good way to run a government. But I have to remind him and remind all my colleagues that about 1\1/2\ years ago we were in this House, in this Chamber, talking about the budget--the Budget Control Act, as I remember. So about 1\1/2\ years ago we had a vote.

I did not support the legislation because I felt that sequestration was a bad idea; but the House passed the bill, the Senate passed the bill, and the President signed it. So, for me, it's very difficult to lay blame on any one party because this was done in a bipartisan manner. It is very difficult for me to lay blame on one Chamber because both Chambers passed the bill. And it's very difficult for me to blame the administration for signing it because this was an action taken in the House, the Senate, and signed by the President. I thought it was a bad idea, but the majority felt it was a better idea, and they went forward.

Now, I have to tell you that Administrator Huerta was before our subcommittee this week. He detailed the cuts that he had to make based on the rules and regulations of the various laws that deal with sequestration. That is why 149 contract towers were recommended to be shut--but they remained open because of a lawsuit--and that is why we had to furlough the FAA air traffic controllers.

In his testimony, Administrator Huerta reminded us that in February of this year a letter was sent by Secretary LaHood to the leadership, including me and Chairman Latham, that the sequestration was going to cause problems in the efficiency of the air traffic control system because there would be a furlough of air traffic controllers in order to meet the cuts that were required by sequestration. That was done in February.

In March, when sequestration was invoked, the FAA had to then implement a plan to see what it had to do to meet the number of cuts it had to make, but not to take away the safety of our air traffic control system, knowing that its efficiency would be diminished. And so today, we are here bringing a fix to this situation. Furloughs have been taken; 10 percent of the employees are furloughed. And that has resulted, to the passengers' inconvenience, in delays or canceled flights.

The problem is--and I agree with my chairman--that this solution is not a good solution because there are other agencies that have to make their cuts and are in a crisis themselves. So, hopefully, when we come back from our district work period, there won't be another agency, another crisis that we have to start shifting money from one account to save another account.

Mr. Speaker, the solution is a comprehensive removal of the sequestration. That will only come about, in my belief and in my opinion, if the House, with its budget, and the Senate, with its budget, will conference and work out the details that it needs to work out to have a comprehensive solution, not just to our budget, but also to sequestration. That needs to be done in order that we're not dealing with issue by issue, crisis by crisis.

So I agree with my chairman that this is not a good way to run a government, but this morning I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Last Sunday, the Federal Aviation Administration began to impose the furloughs that were required as a result of sequestration.

The FAA has had to cut a total of $637 million from its annual budget; $485 million of that amount had to be cut from its operations account.

However, the deep cuts required by sequestration still forced the FAA to shut down nearly

150 contract towers and furlough each of the agency's employees for one day a pay period for the remainder of the fiscal year. That meant that every affected employee would lose as much as 11 days of pay.

The FAA operates seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. It should have surprised no one that removing 10 percent of the workforce on any given day was going to have serious impacts on our air traffic control system.

Without a complete workforce on hand, the FAA had to take measures to slow down the efficiency of the air traffic control system in order to ensure that safety of the system was not ever compromised.

Since last Sunday when the furloughs began, there have been nearly 3,500 delayed flights due to staffing reductions. As a result, thousands of passengers have been inconvenienced by long delays or cancelled flights. As my colleagues will recall, Secretary La Hood warned us of these impacts back in February.

The bill before us provides additional flexibility to the Federal Aviation Administration to help avoid the furloughs required by sequestration. Specifically, it takes carryover discretionary funds from the airport grant program and allows those funds to be used for FAA operations.

This bill is drafted as a one-time fix for one year. It does not eliminate a penny of the $637 million in cuts that the FAA has to make because of sequestration. It simply shifts where the cuts will be taken.

At a time when we need to maintain our infrastructure, we should not make a practice of reducing capital programs to address operational shortfalls.

The bill before us does nothing to address the sequestration cuts that the FAA will have to make in Fiscal Year 2014 and beyond.

We need to find a comprehensive solution to sequestration. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time, I would like to remind my colleague that this bill passed the House, the Senate, and was signed by the President. That was what brought us sequestration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our Democratic leader from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my friend, I have to remind my colleague that I voted against that bill, and the bill passed because there was a majority of Republicans who supported it. So we just can't blame one House or one Senate or the President, because all of us share the blame in one way or the other.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

I will ask my chairman, do you want to even out the time? I will reserve my time if you like.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I rise to ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is a one-time fix in a crisis we are having today with our air traffic system. But I join my colleagues, as well as probably my chairman, in asking the House leadership, both the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership, to please work on a comprehensive solution to the sequester in order that we can bring regular order and get the type of government that the American people deserve.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

This is a hostage-taking, and I know that the American people are watching the blame game. But the blame game falls clearly on this side of the aisle. My Republican friends held this place hostage: we won't pay the debt ceiling; we won't pay our debts.

Now we're losing 2 million jobs, 4,800 Head Start programs. And I believe in air traffic controllers, but we're holding them hostage. What about the person who cannot afford an airline ticket? And so I'm saying today that it is important that we stand for the millions of dollars that we are losing for homeland security. Is it time to take millions from military families?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 900, a one- sentence bill, that would repeal the section of the Budget Control Act of 2011 to get rid of the sequester, go to budget conference, have conferees, have a budget, get rid of the sequester. Bring it up now.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 900.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. We have to save the traveling public, but I ask the question about 5,000 children in Texas that will lose Head Start, or the millions of seniors, or our military families that will lose support because we've got the sequester, all on the shoulders of those that believe that the way we run the Federal Government is by slash and burn. Where are our hearts? Help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1765 is a poor substitute for real Congressional leadership and pragmatic solutions for the millions of Americans impacted by the sequester. Using sequestration, Republicans in the House are holding the American public hostage, extracting carve- outs that serve their own interests while shamefully ignoring the people who will be impacted by the billions in remaining cuts.

While I support putting all of our air traffic controllers back on the job so that air transit is as safe and reliable as possible, this bill leaves everyone else to suffer the devastating consequences of the sequester cuts. Sequestration unduly constrains the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles. I support restoring funding for our air traffic control officers, but this bill does nothing to relieve the anguish of those Americans who cannot afford to buy an airline ticket.

As a Senior Member of the House Homeland Security Committee I find it outrageous that in Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed. The sequester, which the Republicans did nothing to prevent, would undermine the significant progress the Department of Homeland Security has made over the past ten years and would negatively affect our ability to carry out their vital mission.

Sequestration will eventually roll back border security, increase wait times at our Nation's land ports of entry and airports, affect aviation and maritime safety and security, leave critical infrastructure vulnerable to attacks, hamper disaster response time and significantly scale back cyber security infrastructure protections that have been developed in recent years.

Republicans forced Congress to adopt sequestration as a backstop by playing a political game of chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling to pay our debts. While we understand and share the concern of our Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism, and the arbitrary cuts imposed by the sequester are not the answer.

Instead of forcing the average American to pay the price for a dysfunctional Washington, give the leaders of both parties the time needed to reach some consensus on budget issues.

Republicans, particularly Members of the Tea Party, need to understand that allowing the sequester to continue is worst way to go about achieving a long-term debt reduction. Cutting two million jobs nationwide and slowing the growth of our gross domestic product by half a percent will barely make a dent in our debt, but it will result in widespread misery.

Moreover, it jeopardizes the economic progress that we have worked hard to achieve, and even threatens to throw us back into a recession. My state of Texas is greatly affected by sequestration. These cuts will have a devastating and widespread impact on local communities.

Texas will lose approximately $67.8 million for primary and secondary education, putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition, about 172,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 280 fewer schools would receive funding.

Texas will lose approximately $51 million for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access to critical early education.

In Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total.

Texas will lose about $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Around 83,750 fewer Texans will get the help and skills they need to find employment as Texas will lose about $2,263,000 for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning.

Up to 2,300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

In Texas around 9,730 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations.

Violence Against Women Grants: Texas could lose up to $543,000 to provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 2,100 fewer victims being served.

Texas will lose approximately $2,402,000 to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events.

In addition, Texas will lose about $6,750,000 in grants to help prevent and treat

substance abuse, resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Texas State Department of Public Health will lose about $1,146,000 resulting un around 28,600 fewer HIV tests.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 900, the ``Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013'' be brought to the floor for a vote.

This one-sentence bill would end this national nightmare by repealing the section of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that imposed sequestration and its senseless, job-destroying cuts. If Congress cannot or will not come together in bipartisan agreement on a budget, I believe we have a duty to avert these catastrophic cuts by repealing them.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1765) to provide the Secretary of Transportation with the flexibility to transfer certain funds to prevent reduced operations and staffing of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 1765.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I come today with H.R. 1765, a bill to provide up to $253 million from the Airport Improvement Program--or any other account in the FAA--to the Operations Account. The purpose of this transfer authority is to restore reliable and safe service in the commercial air traffic system by reducing or eliminating employee furlough days.

I think we all agree the FAA and the administration has handled the sequester poorly. The FAA has negotiated in bad faith with the FAA employees, the airlines, the flying public, and the Congress. And the administration has played shameful politics with sequestration at the cost to hardworking American families. As I have often said, this is simply no way to run a government.

But the Congress is stepping in to correct the problems created by the administration's inaction. We're taking this step because of the gross mismanagement of this important function for the safety of all Americans who fly and on behalf of the commerce that depends on a reliable air system. We are taking this action to end the administration's political games that threaten our passenger rights and safety.

The fact that we're here today trying to solve this problem is as a result of the sequester. I remind you that the President brought the sequester to the table. And in an effort to avoid the arbitrary $1.2 trillion of cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act, twice the majority in this House has passed commonsense legislation that would have replaced the sequestration with targeted spending cuts of an equal dollar amount.

Unfortunately, the Senate never considered either of these bills, and thus the sequestration was triggered.

Further, this situation goes to show that we need to return to regular order and consider appropriation bills in their entirety and not rely on continuing resolutions to fund the government.

Under a CR, there is no way for us to prioritize cuts or protect programs related to the safety of the American public. It also goes to show that we must have a long-term, comprehensive solution to our budget challenges, one that solves the sequester and provides sustainability and stability in the Federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, I put the administration, the Secretary, and the agency on alert that we are watching. We have questions, and we want answers about how you're using these funds and how you're going to be managing the rest of our Department. Like I said at the FAA hearing this last Wednesday, the safety of our air space cannot be subject to political posturing.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

It's fascinating that the administration that insisted on the sequestration----

The gentleman just spoke.

Supported the sequestration. And so now to come and make a statement is quite fascinating.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

I would now like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the former chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Does the gentleman have two more speakers? I just have one more. I was going to suggest that you go ahead with your speaker. Now I'll have one, you'll have one, and then we can close.

Yes.

What was the question if I may?

No.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Might I inquire of the gentleman from Arizona, you have 30 seconds left. If you would like to go ahead and close, I will reserve at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to associate myself with what my good friend and ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Pastor, just said. We've got to find a solution, come to an agreement. This is a horrible way to run a government, with sequester. When you take a meat-ax approach to departments, there's no common sense. And that's why we need to get back to regular order around here and actually do appropriations bills. We would avoid these types of potentially catastrophic situations that we find ourselves in.

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask everyone to understand that the Senate sent this over last night. It is now an H.R. bill, our bill. The Senate will approve it as soon as we pass it in the House here. It is very important that we do this for the American people, the traveling public, for safety of the system, to make sure that our commerce continues. So I would ask everyone to support this bill.

And let's fix the big problem, and that's come to a budget agreement.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

I rise to offer this motion to ensure that our strategic reserve of helium gas does not fall into the hands of those who wish to harm the United States or target our allies abroad. Helium is a crucial component of manufacturing and research processes here in the United States. The consistent availability of helium to United States companies and research institutions is, therefore, essential to our global competitiveness as well as our national security.

NASA is one of the largest consumers of helium gas in the United States, utilizing helium for a number of crucial national security priorities. For example, the deployment of critical communications satellites, which is made possible by helium, helps to support our global information network and must remain a strategic U.S. asset. Helium has been utilized to purge explosive rocket fuel from intercontinental ballistic missiles and continues to be a strategic resource for any nation looking to build an advanced missile program. Helium is also utilized in cooling nuclear reactors.

This motion seeks to manage this national resource in a safe and responsible way by ``banning exports to hostile nations that seek nuclear weapons or missile technology.'' Helium can be used in the missile technology utilized by Iran, Syria, and North Korea, putting millions of lives at risk in the Middle East, on the Korean Peninsula, and possibly around the world.

Over the last several months, we have seen escalating belligerence from North Korea, Iran, and Syria, including missile tests, the acceleration of nuclear programs and, most recently, the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime against its own citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the House must adopt this language to ensure that the proper safeguards are in place to deny those rogue states access to our national helium reserve for their nefarious purposes.

I know we can all agree that the threats emanating from these countries are serious and that our enemies seek access to technology and resources to harm the United States and our allies. Our helium reserve is an asset we must secure from their reach.

The actions of these regimes continue to invoke national condemnation. This body has repeatedly acted to sanction these regimes for their reprehensible behavior. This motion is simply one more step to provide safeguards against the threat posed by these countries.

We must deny the export of helium from the strategic reserve to specifically the nations of Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and allow the President the authority to deny exports to businesses or entities that could potentially divert helium to these governments.

We have seen an increasing number of provocations from North Korea, Iran, and Syria. These incidents have directly targeted the United States, threatened the existence of Israel, and endangered the lives of countless civilians in Syria.

It is our responsibility to ensure that our national assets, including our strategic helium reserve, are guarded from being used against us. This motion to recommit would help in achieving that goal. The motion provides a meaningful and necessary safeguard against potential use of the strategic helium reserve and helps to support our national security.

Again, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

I urge all Members to support this commonsense language.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is really a very unusual morning. We are here because of the refusal of the Republicans to come to the table for a conference. What is a conference? A conference is a public open meeting where differences between the House budget bill and the Senate budget bill can be reconciled. It is done with transparency and in full public view. Each side proud of our priorities, we have the American people be the judge of what is their statement of values.

Afraid of that public scrutiny, the Republicans have refused to appoint conferees for a conference--conferees for a conference. We call upon the Speaker to appoint conferees so that we can have that public airing, that transparent view, of something very important.

The Republican leadership has said in the House and the Senate they want the regular order. What is the regular order?

The regular order is the House passes a bill; the Senate passes a bill; you go to conference. Now, afraid that their views may be rejected by the American people, they don't want to go to conference. That's why we are here this morning for sequestration.

What is sequestration?

Sequestration is a mindless, across-the-board cutting of what we are now recognizing--and the Republicans are recognizing--as something that should not be cut. It affects the efficiency and the safety of our airports. That's very important. Yet, as our distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, has pointed out, there is much more that needs to be addressed instead of using this as a vehicle.

One of the distinguished chairmen said earlier that the safety of our airports should not be subject to political debate. Neither should the education of our children, the nutrition for our seniors--4 million Meals on Wheels, tens of thousands of children thrown off Head Start. Our defense--mindless across-the-board cuts in our defense, and what that means for our national security and for the workers in our national security sector--the list goes on and on. Investments in our future--biomedical research, cut by this.

So I suppose, if this is an example of governance, that the Republicans will next come up with something else and will say we should exempt that. Why don't we just get rid of the problem? Why don't we just get rid of the problem and go to conference?

Some of the press said to me, Does this hurt your leverage in going to conference?

I said, No. This is an opportunity because it demonstrates to the American people how unwise this course of action is and how much better it would be to find solutions, to get results in the regular order-- respectful of everyone's point of view but recognizing that decisions made here will have an impact, not only in the lives of the children and in the lives of their teachers and in the lives of all consumers, but on our economy as well.

This should be a clarion call. It's almost ludicrous to hear my Republican colleagues get up there and talk about their individual airports. Most of us have airports. We understand what this issue is about.

Why don't you understand that there is a great deal at stake, including the efficiency and the safety of our airports as well as the education of our children?

How can we sit there and say 4 million Meals on Wheels for seniors, gone? But that's not important. Over 70,000 children off Head Start. But that's not important.

What is important is for the Republicans to hold a hard line about the public debate about the budget that a conference would provide. The Members will vote the way they're going to vote on this, but recognize that this is not the way Congress should be meeting the needs of the American people. Let's go to conference.

Mr. Speaker, appoint conferees so we can end this mindless sequestration.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore