Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, well, last weekend I was shocked to read the statements of the Republican chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, Senator Corker. He said that, ``Trump has put us on the path to World War III.''

This makes it essential that Congress assert its full powers under the Constitution of the United States.

In reaction to Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia and the aftermath, Congress passed something called the War Powers Act. Unfortunately, there was a dispute between the two bodies, and, ultimately, the Senate prevailed and watered down the bill.

Instead of saying, ``Before the President engages our troops in hostilities, that he or she must come to the Congress,'' instead, the bill ultimately adopted saying, ``48 hours after the President has engaged our troops in hostilities, he or she must report to the Congress and then seek subsequent authorization, or the troops would be withdrawn after 60 days.''

I have introduced legislation in this and preceding Congresses to fix that. That clearly does not represent the constitutional powers of the United States Congress. The Constitution is absolutely clear. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Once war is declared, the President, under the Constitution, is the Commander in Chief and would act with one voice to conduct the war and coordinate military efforts.

So my bill would say--do away with the allowance of 48 hours and say: Before engaging U.S. troops and military in hostilities, that the President must first come to the Congress and seek a declaration of war. I think it is absolutely essential that this Congress act on this legislation and make it clear to the President of the United States that he does not have the authority to wake up one morning and tweet of an attack against another country and engage these people in an escalation that may end, as Senator Corker says, in World War III.

This is a very dangerous time for our country. It is time for this separate and equal branch of the government to assert its full authority to rein in any and all dangerous activities by this President.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with many of the gentleman's concerns and comments regarding the lack of a real legislative process here. The bill could be better. But nonetheless, like the ranking member, I will be supporting the legislation despite those concerns because it is absolutely urgent.

I have a totally dysfunctional management at the VA hospital in Roseburg, Oregon. A number of years ago, a whistleblower came to me and said that substandard care was being provided. We asked the Office of Inspector General to look into it. They whitewashed it, and then it came out in the Senate testimony that the Office of Special Counsel had found that this doctor had been penalized as a whistleblower because he was pointing to substandard care.

I asked for another investigation and ultimately found, yes, indeed, substandard care was being provided by the head surgeon. He was suspended from his duties but is still the head surgeon. Now he has run another very accomplished doctor, under very dubious circumstances, out of my Eugene clinic. This is a surgeon who served 29 years, honorably, in the military, 10 years at my regional hospital with rave reviews, and, after 30 days at my new VA clinic in Eugene, was dismissed in the most unusual way with no allegations put forward.

Mr. Speaker, again, it seems that we are having issues here when the quality is substandard that this one person is able to basically just get rid of the folks who are raising concerns about the care of veterans. Again, this shouldn't happen.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record two letters regarding the dismissed doctor.

October 17, 2017.

Dear Mr. DeFazio: I am a contracted physician in the

emergency department at the Roseburg VA. I have been working

at this facility since 2010. During that time I have truly

enjoyed providing care for the veterans. However, I have

significant concerns regarding the administration and

inefficiencies in healthcare, in the VA system.

Unfortunately, it seems that advancement of careers and the

fluffing of numbers supersede patient care.

Despite the build up of these concerns over the years, I

have recently became aware of an action that compels me to go

beyond the normal chain of command. One of the surgeons

working at the Eugene campus--still under the Roseburg

administration--was fired recently under very concerning

circumstances.

Dr. Scott Russi was working at the Eugene VA for less than

1 month when he was pushed out and fired. I know Dr. Russi

from the private sector. In addition to working at the

Roseburg VA, I have worked for the last ten years at Sacred

Heart RiverBend--a trauma, stroke, and cardiac center--and

one of the largest hospitals in the state. I worked alongside

Dr. Russi for many years at RiverBend and I found him to be

not only extremely competent and hardworking, but always very

professional. I was sad to see him leave RiverBend, but I was

encouraged that he would be working in the VA system as I

felt he would significantly improve the quality of care for

the veterans.

I find it very disheartening that a group of administrative

physicians, who rarely practice medicine, are able to strike

down such a promising figure simply because they seem to have

felt threatened by him. I know there are many people who are

upset by this firing and who have concerns about this system

in general. I have tried many times to discuss my concerns

with people in the administration and have been met with, at

best, excuses and, at worst, threats. It is clear to me as

somewhat of an outsider and observer (as I am not actually a

VA employee) that physicians who are dedicated to patient

care and most skilled are threatening to the administration.

These physicians are often ostracized and pushed out--and

when they can't be pushed out, false rumors are spread about

them. I have considered stepping away from the VA system due

to these continuing frustrations. It is disheartening to see

these veterans treated with such carelessness. However, I

feel that someone has to stay and actually care for them,

but, if I stay, I also want to try to make the system a

better place for them. For many, this is their only health

care.

I wish this was as exaggerated as it may sound, but

unfortunately this is only a small piece of a huge problem.

If you are interested in more details, I am more than happy

to discuss this further. In general, I keep my head down and

do what I think is best, but this presents itself as a moment

when speaking out is necessary and right.

Thank you,

Charlotte Ransom, MD.

Mr. Speaker, since this has come out, I have had dozens of calls from nurses and doctors and other workers in the VA system in my region--in Eugene, Springfield, and southern Oregon, down to Roseburg, at those two facilities--because of this mismanagement. They say that the care is not up to standards, just like this particular physician was not providing modern care when he did colonoscopies.

We need--vitally need--this legislation and the strongest protection for whistleblowers. This isn't about protecting bad managers. It is about promoting qualified and keeping qualified employees, which we are having a hard time doing in my area. It is about providing the best care to our veterans, and that isn't going to happen if people can be intimidated or just shown the door when they raise concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Curt Haensel, Senior Counsel of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.

For the past 30 years, Curt has served as Legislative Counsel to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In that time, Curt has worked to assist the Committee under eight different Committee Chairmen, half a dozen Ranking Members, and hundreds of our Committee colleagues. He formally began working with the Committee in 1989 and one of the first bills he worked on was H.R. 598, which banned smoking on commercial airlines. At the Committee markup, Curt drafted dozens of amendments as the smokers and their advocates worked to fill the amendment tree, as they tried to kill the bill by endless amendment. The back row of the dais filled with cigarette smoke as the Committee slowly worked its will and ultimately banned smoking on airlines.

After this baptism by fire, Curt went on to work on every single surface transportation, aviation, water resources, and environmental law that this Committee has enacted. He took our ideas, and working with our staffs, used his gifted legislative craftsmanship to shape our transportation future. ISTEA, TEA 21, SAFETEA-LU, and the FAST Act; Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Acts; WRDA after WRDA; and dozens of other Acts all bear his stamp.

One of Curt's great achievements was his work, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, on the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which enhanced aviation and surface transportation security and created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). After months of negotiation and as the Thanksgiving break approached, House and Senate Committee staffs and House Legislative Counsel spent 20-hour days drafting the agreement. The Committee Chairmen and Ranking Members finally resolved the remaining critical issues on a Thursday afternoon. House and Senate Leaders wanted the agreement passed the following day, Friday, before the House and Senate adjourned for Thanksgiving. As Committee staffs and Legislative Counsels Curt Haensel and Dave Mendelsohn finished drafting the conference agreement around 4:30 a.m., the Office of Legislative Counsel computers failed and the computer files of the agreement were completely lost. The Committees faced the prospect that Congress may not be able to pass the legislation before the Thanksgiving break There was a genuine fear that, over the break, the hard-fought agreement could fall apart. Instead, Curt and his colleagues, after a walk around the block to clear their heads, recreated the text from memory and, later that day, both the House and Senate passed the agreement. Two days later, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law and the U.S. Department of Transportation began immediately implementing it to make our country safer. This little-known story is but one example of Curt's contributions to the House of Representatives and the American people.

Curt will continue to serve in his new role. He is joining the Office of Legislative Counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), where he will help develop DOD's request for the National Defense Authorization Act each year. I am hopeful that this new opportunity provides Curt more time to spend with his wife, Meg, and their two kids, Ada and Peter, and hopefully watching his beloved Wisconsin Badgers and spending longer vacations on Lake Michigan's shores.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will truly miss his expertise, wise counsel, and friendship. I join all of my colleagues on the Committee in wishing Curt all the best in his new endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize 45 Oregon veterans who are visiting our nation's capital this Saturday, October 7, as part ofthe South Willamette Valley Honor Flight. These brave individuals risked their lives to protect and defend the United States and are now here to visit those monuments and memorials they helped inspire.

The veterans on this honor flight are as follows:

World War II--Bud Barnes, Army; Don Copenhagen, Army; Bud Garrett, Navy; Ed Hemmingson, Merchant Marines; Wally High, Navy; Arlie Holte, Army; Bob LeBlanc, Navy; Ray Maggard, Navy; Carl Mason, Navy; Ralph Morse, Marine Corps; Curt Wiese, Navy; Stan Wilson, Marine Corps.

Korean War--Larry Adair, Army; Gene Amundson, Army; Paulie Bokn, Army; Jim Broughton, Navy; Stan Clark, Air Force; Joe Couture, Air Force; John Dobson, Navy; Carl Gripenburg, Army; Marshall Heflin, Air Force; Don Hinkle, Navy; Terry Howard, Army; William Macauley, Air Force; Dorrance Mattson, Air Force; Ed Stelting, Army; Ida Stemple, Navy; Charlie Stoakes, Army; Ed Sullivan, Air Force; Jay Surgeon, Navy; Ron Swanson, Air Force; Maurice Thorne, Air Force; Les Warner, Army.

Vietnam War--Kham Bounnavong, Army; Paul Fiegener, Army; Joe Grace, Army; Ken Henderson, Army; Mike Kisinger, Navy; Dick Mann, Army; Tim Mulhern, Marine Corps; Bob Pieper, Air Force; Ralph Wendt, Army; Bob Whitehead, Navy.

It is my privilege to include their names in the Record and my sincere hope that you'll join me in recognizing them for their extraordinary service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name from H.R. 367.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the tragic and horrific events this Sunday, I believe our focus should be on bipartisan efforts to investigate the causes and lessen the potential for gun violence in America. That is why I am calling on Speaker Ryan to name a select committee to address these issues.

Additionally, I believe the Republican leadership should formally withdraw their so-called sportsman's package, which has many objectionable provisions.

Furthermore, we need to bring to the floor a vote on comprehensive background check legislation that includes closing the gun show loophole and individual internet sale loophole. There is overwhelming support in the public and this Congress for those actions.

I would like to see what the investigation reveals and whether a suppressor would have allowed this monster to create more carnage. However, we do know he used something called a bump stock, which I never heard of before.

Anything that converts a semiautomatic weapon into something that is virtually a fully automatic weapon, which is outlawed, should not be sold. The bump stocks and any other devices like that should be banned.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget proposal.

As the ranking member on the Transportation Committee, I want to focus in a little bit on what they do to transportation.

We heard great promises from President Trump of a trillion dollars in new investment. Nothing has come from the White House. The first substantive action on transportation in this Congress is going to be the Republicans in the House of Representatives cutting transportation funding by $254 billion.

That is right. No trillion dollars of new spending. We are going to spend $254 billion less.

They are going to eliminate all long-route trains, isolating rural America. They are going to lose essential air service in rural America. And, by the way, the Republicans want to toll your interstate. So if you live in rural America, you can get in your car to go somewhere, but now you are going to have to pay to use the highway you already paid for.

Secondly, it eliminates critical funding for our urban areas, the economic engines of this country. It eliminates TIGER grants for freight and multimodal projects. It eliminates new investment in transit, new start projects. It eliminates all investments in high- speed rail and eliminates specific funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Republicans just hate bicycles.

It also goes on--and this is totally amazing--seriously, you are going to cut funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Haven't you been watching television? I think they are already out of money. You are going to cut funding?

We want to do away with those programs that might mitigate the disaster of future floods and hurricanes. You are going to cut grants for firefighters.

Then, that is not enough. We are going to roll back Davis-Bacon protections for people who work on federally funded projects. We are going to roll back Buy American? Really? So it is ``Buy Chinese'' in the Republican budget. Buy Chinese.

They want to devolve the obligation to fund Federal highways to the States. I have got news for you: we have tried that.

This is Kansas and Oklahoma. This is Kansas before we had the Eisenhower--by the way, a Republican--National Highway Program. They built their turnpike. Oklahoma said they would build theirs. They didn't. They were out of money. They didn't build it until they got an 80 percent Federal match.

So let's go back to the good, old days. We are going to devolve the obligations of putting together a 21st century transportation system in this country, knitting our country together, getting rid of congestion, moving people and goods more efficiently, but we are going to do it on a State-by-State basis. That is nuts. I just can't believe this.

Then, there is another little trick. The chairman of my committee wants to privatize the airspace in the United States and reduce the ticket tax that

pays for air traffic control. That would be a $10 billion windfall to the airline industry, because they will raise prices. Then they are going to charge you a head fee to get on the plane.

Even better, it creates $100 billion of new deficit. So this nifty little thing here contains a reserve fund of $100 billion to try and make up for the fact and hide the fact that they are cutting $100 billion of taxes that pay for the current system.

How are you going to pay for the next system?

The airlines will determine that, not Congress.

Madam Speaker, today, there are over 800 so-called enterprise carriers from Mexico operating heavy trucks long distance in the United States.

Now, what is wrong with that?

Well, Mexico doesn't have any drug or alcohol testing of its commercial drivers. Mexico does not have a centralized database of commercial driver's licenses and driving offenses, making it difficult, if not impossible, to attract and disqualify drivers who are unsafe and who would be disqualified here in the United States.

In Mexico, truck drivers are pretty much exploited and abused. They don't even have hours of service rules. Some drivers will drive for 1 or 2 days straight.

In the United States, of course, we have very restrictive rules for safety on hours of service. Those laws, theoretically, apply to the 800 Mexican enterprise carriers operating in the United States.

However, how many hours did that person drive before they got to the border? Was it 24 or 48?

Then they cross over the border and they are limited.

Congress objected and voted multiple times by huge bipartisan majorities on legislation I supported to say: No, we do not want these Mexican trucks ranging about here in the United States until they can prove that they meet the same standards as our truck drivers.

We have had a few offenses. We don't even put special scrutiny on these enterprise carriers. We have very few inspectors out there. But they have managed to rack up some pretty horrific records on a random basis that raise huge questions about their safety.

They had over 900 violations per driver that cannot read or speak the English language sufficiently to respond to official inquiries, a violation of the law; over 800 violations for brake-related issues-- worn brake hoses, defective brakes, et cetera; and hundreds of other violations for tire treads, exhaust leaks, and oil leaks. One company was fined $40,000.

There is only one way to solve this issue, and that is to modify the NAFTA agreement. Remember, this was authorized. They were given national treatment; that is, Mexico is treated the same as the U.S. They won, in one of those secret tribunals, a huge judgment against the United States.

The Obama administration caved in and allowed the door to be opened to

these unsafe carriers operating in the United States. We can close that door again by just modifying NAFTA.

The Trump administration is approaching this issue perhaps as early as next week in the NAFTA negotiations, and this should be at the top of their agenda: we will not give them national treatment; they will have to meet our standards and prove that they have met our standards; they have to develop a meaningful driver's license base; they will have to have drug and alcohol testing; they have to have hours of service. Then we can talk about whether or not they can operate in the United States.

We had a system before NAFTA. Mexican truck drivers would bring the trucks just over the border. They were limited in how far they could go. They would drop the trailers. U.S. truck drivers would pick them up.

Then there is one other issue here: Are we going to do to our trucking industry what we have done to so many in manufacturing? Are we going to drive down truck drivers' wages?

It is already a tough business, particularly for independent drivers. Are we going to make them compete with people who are earning 2 bucks an hour and don't have to meet the same rules as they do? That is not fair competition, and it is not good for the American people, not for the jobs or the safety on our highways.

So I am asking the Trump administration to hang tough on this issue and take away this national treatment that we are giving to Mexico, which does not have an equivalent system to the United States, and go to something that is based on reciprocity and equivalence. That would be a good change to the NAFTA agreement, which, of course, I opposed from day one.

Mr. Speaker, this would be the fourth FAA extension in 2 years. It didn't have to be this way. We had a bill come out of the committee in the last Congress and this Congress that was bipartisan except for one provision; that is the privatization of the Air Traffic Organization.

Now, there is a citizen group out there called Citizens for On Time Flights--actually, Airlines for America funds this--who are saying that we have to fly these old zigzag routes with 1950s' radar, and if only we, the airlines--the same airlines, by the way, that have had their dispatch and reservation systems go down 39 times in the last 2 years. The national air traffic system hasn't gone down in the last 2 years.

But, anyway, they could do better, they say--or Citizens for On Time Flights say. But, unfortunately, it is based on lies.

We have deployed a system where we could fly planes closer together. It is operational, actually, but the airlines haven't purchased the equipment to use it, and they are not going to purchase that equipment until 2020 or after.

So they are saying the FAA is dragging its feet; the FAA is over budget; the FAA is this, the FAA is that. No. Actually, it is the airlines that haven't purchased the equipment to use that system.

Now, the other most egregious part of this privatization proposal is the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Brady, has decided to give taxing authority to the private corporation. Now, they are not going to call it taxes. It is fees. Okay.

But right now we finance our Air Traffic Organization with a 7\1/2\ percent tax, a progressive tax; the more expensive your ticket, the more you pay. That is how we finance, predominantly, our Air Traffic Organization.

Well, this bill repeals that ticket tax. First thing that happens is the airlines raise their tickets by 7\1/2\ percent. They already did that once 5 years ago when there was a temporary lapse. Only two airlines didn't, Spirit and Alaska. Everybody else grabbed the money and ran, $400 billion.

So Congress repeals the ticket tax. They raise prices 7\1/2\ percent, and then they would get three seats on the board. Three seats will go to direct airlines interests to decide what passengers and how people will pay to use the national airspace. So they, in all probability, will come up with a head tax.

So, in addition to paying $7 billion a year for baggage fees, now we are going to start charging people to use the national airspace with a flat tax. So, hey, that is a big, great win for the people with first class tickets. The people, of course, who have got a $100 coach seat are now going to be paying more like 20 percent or 25 percent. And the person with a $2,000 ticket is going to pay, basically, 3-point- something percent.

So this is all really unfortunate because we could have passed already out of this House a bipartisan bill, sent it to the Senate. Instead of trying to jam them with this bill that is loaded down with riders, we would be jamming them with good, long-term policy for the FAA and the traveling public and the aviation industry in America.

Mr Speaker, we have already heard from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who is a member of the committee, who is going to oppose the bill because of provisions regarding private flood insurance. He thinks it will cause Federal flood insurance to collapse. And the two Senators from Louisiana who they are attempting to jam with this bill are saying they are going to oppose the bill and block it in the Senate. So we may end up with no continuing authorization for the FAA because they wanted to put these flood insurance provisions and other riders on this bill instead of passing them as separate legislation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a temporary extension of the absolutely crucial Federal Aviation Administration--which runs our air traffic control system in the United States of America; the largest, most complex, and safest system in the world--failed. It actually will expire on October 1. That means that the source of funding for air traffic goes away and air traffic controllers may be working without salaries.

Now, why are we here?

We are here because the chairman of the committee insists that we must privatize the air traffic control of the United States, the largest, most complex, safest, most advanced system in the world, to make it even better. Unfortunately, he does not enjoy support adequate to get this bill through. He delayed the bill in the last Congress because he didn't have the votes, and the bill has been delayed multiple times in this Congress. It has bipartisan opposition, and the Senate isn't even thinking about this.

Now, why are we here?

Well, the airlines have this fake group they call the Citizens for On Time Flights. And they say we have to fly old zigzag patterns across the United States with World War II radar. Well, that would be really bad if it were true. However, it is a lie.

In fact, we have direct routes, performance-based navigation. Actually, the government has built and deployed a functional system where we can fly every plane in America by GPS. But the airlines haven't wanted to make the investment in their planes. So, actually, they are making a case against themselves.

Why aren't we using the system more efficiently?

Because they have failed to purchase the equipment to fly planes closer together. If every plane doesn't have GPS, we can't fly them closer together because the air traffic controllers won't know exactly where they are.

Now, they say: Well, if we get to run the system, it will be more efficient. It is ATC that is the problem.

Well, here is June: In June, actually, airline operations, overscheduling, crew dispatch, mechanicals, the host of things that they have, caused 46 percent of the delays.

And then they go on to say: Well, this is horrible, these delays. It costs Americans $20 billion a year.

If that is true, then the airlines are costing American consumers $11.5 billion a year because they themselves won't clean up their acts.

Again, they go on about ATO. How many times have their dispatch and reservation systems crashed in the last 5 years?

Dozens of times, stranding millions of people.

How many times has the entire ATC in the United States of America gone down?

Zero. Zero times.

So we should let them run it? They will run it better, just like their computer reservation and their dispatch systems?

Come on. There is really just a very simple agenda here. We finance the current Air Traffic Organization with a 7.5 percent tax on every ticket--a progressive tax. The more expensive your ticket, the more you pay. That pays for about 75 percent of the system today.

The bill that the chairman wants to push will repeal the ticket tax. Airlines will raise prices 7.5 percent. So everybody will still pay the same amount for their tickets.

How do I know that?

Because this tax temporarily lapsed 5 years ago and every airline in America, except for Spirit and Alaska, immediately raised ticket prices 7.5 percent.

So then how are we going to pay for the system?

Well, actually, they are going to impose a new head tax. That is right. You get on the plane and you will pay a new head tax to use the airspace of the United States of America.

Now, that, of course, is a flat fee. So if you have a $100 ticket, 25 percent tax, $25 to sit in that seat. If you have a $3,000 ticket, well, you are going to pay a tiny fraction. It won't bother you very much at all. So we are going to go from a fair, progressive tax that finances the system to a flat head tax.

The airlines get a $10 billion windfall. And guess what. Your elected Representative will have nothing to say about it. The people on the Ways and Means Committee, the Republicans here, have decided that the airlines will have a vote on the new user fee. Yes, they will. They have a designated seat on the board of the new private corporation, so they will vote on the user fee. Your elected Representative does not have a vote, does not have review capability. It is entirely removed from the jurisdiction of the United States Congress. This is absolutely outrageous.

I mean, a campaign based on lies. We have a report from the Government Accountability Office saying, in fact, if we privatize, it will delay things in terms of implementing the new system and make it more expensive.

I happen to have the draft report. It was censored by political people in the Bush administration. So the final report just kind of waters down those conclusions. But they are still in there, and I am happy to make the draft report available to anybody who wants to know honestly what is going on around here. This place is not straight up.

Mr. Speaker, this is purportedly an absolutely essential extension of authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration to continue to operate after October 1. Unfortunately, it has devolved into other issues because it has turned into a Christmas tree on the Republican side of the aisle.

We need to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. The last time Congress failed to do this--and the ticket tax, which is what pays for air traffic control in America, expired--almost every airline in America raised their rates 7.5 percent, got a $400 million windfall, which the government lost, with the exception of two: I understand, Alaska and Spirit.

So if we fail to reauthorize, we can expect that that will happen again.

Actually, their long-term plan is to privatize the FAA, do away with the ticket tax, reap a $10 billion windfall, and then impose a new per- head fee to use our national airspace, which, by the way, Congress will have nothing to say about that. No elected official will have any authority over what new fees they charge. That is extraordinary.

That came out of the Republican side of the Ways and Means Committee. What a bunch of losers. Come on. Give me a break. You are going to allow the airlines to have the authority, a private corporation, to tax people in America, and then say: Oh, it is not a tax; it is a user fee.

It sure feels like a tax to me, and it is going to feel like that to your constituents. But when they complain, you will say: Oh, go talk to the private corporation.

That is why we are here today, because the chairman of the committee has stubbornly persisted in attempting to privatize the air traffic organization of the United States of America, the most complex, the most efficient, and the safest system in the world.

Yes, there are a few reforms that are needed there. Most of them have to do with us. Congress sequesters their money. Even though there is enough money raised in the ticket tax and other taxes to pay for the system, we sequester their money, we shut them down. We do dumb things like that.

So I introduced a bill to take care of those problems, to exempt them from sequestration; to exempt them from budget shutdowns; and to require reforms in their personnel procedures, their policy procedures in terms of acquisitions; and to enhance the role of their coordinating committee, which has been doing a great job coordinating between the government and the airlines and all the people who use the system, not just the commercial airlines; and authorize funds to rebuild some of the major air traffic control centers, which are falling apart.

Instead, the chairman has insisted that we must privatize because Canada did it, which is kind of a tiny fraction of what we are.

Then the airlines have this fake group called the Citizens for On Time Flights, who say:

We have to fly zigzag routes, which are World War II radar.

No. Actually, we have deployed a system where you could fly all the planes in America closer together with GPS, but the airlines haven't bought the equipment, so they are blaming the FAA. That kind of stinks. So that is why we are here today.

We have a bill that otherwise is totally agreed upon. If we were voting today on an FAA bill to give them a 6-year extension without privatization, with the reforms we need, we would be pressuring the Senate to get something done.

Now, the Senate is hung up over whether or not you should have 1,500 hours of experience to sit in the copilot's seat. After the tragic Colgan accident, reforms were adopted that made these requirements. So they are hung up on that. On this side, we are hung up on privatizing the system.

So it is sad that we have come to this point today. My hope is that we will move forward soon in the bipartisan tradition of my committee, and we will move an FAA bill and any amendments that are allowed, or any riders or anything that is in it will have only to do with aviation, not to do with flood insurance, not to do with any of all these other miscellaneous things that are being thrown in here today. We are here with the Ways and Means Committee on a bill that should be a transportation bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are groups proliferating across America who want to improve our system of aviation. Most people are not anxious to get on planes these days, given the conditions on the airplanes themselves, the treatment they get, the charges to put their bag in the overhead or sit on the aisle--all of these things. It has become quite an unpleasant experience. And then you have the aggravation of delays that ruin your trip, your business meeting, and sometimes your vacation.

Last week, I talked about the Citizens for On Time Flights. Now we have a new group, another new grassroots group. Imagine this. It is called Flyers for Fairness. Now they want to fix the system. Their fix is to privatize the largest, most complex, safest system of air traffic in the world.

They say that we are trapped in the 1950s using World War II radar. Well, that is not quite so true. Actually, it is not World War II radar. We are still using radar. However, we do have a system where we can fly planes closer together, more efficiently use the airspace, called ADS-B.

They would have us believe that somehow this thing is infinitely delayed and overbudget and not happening. Well, actually, we had a GAO report last week that said, actually, it is on budget and it is going very well and, in fact, it is operational.

Well, then why aren't we using it? Well, because the airlines, many of them flying older aircraft, do not want to upgrade their GPS systems. It is very expensive: $200,000 per plane. We calculated it for American Airlines. To equip every plane in their fleet, it would cost them 40 percent of their baggage fees--40 percent of their baggage fees. Now, Wall Street wouldn't like that, so they don't want to make the investment.

Just like the airlines haven't invested in their reservations and dispatch systems which have repeatedly gone down, stranding, cumulatively, millions of people over the last 5 years, but they say they could do a better job running the air traffic system.

Well, actually, the statistics don't quite bear out the arguments of Citizens for On Time Flights, and Flyers

for Fairness, fake Astroturf groups actually funded by Airlines for America. In fact, this Flyers for Fairness is pretty funny.

A guy named Alan Clendenin is the head of it. He won't say who finances the group. He is a former air traffic controller who vehemently opposed privatization as recently as June and now chairs this citizen group and is being paid a handsome salary by whom? I wonder.

Now, here is the big problem with their argument. We have the most recent statistics on delays. Normally, the biggest cause of delays is weather. They would have you believe it is the air traffic system. It is not. In fact, the number one cause of delays in the United States of America today is airline operations. So that is right; the airlines themselves, when they schedule 15 planes to take off at the same time at one airport, when the airport can only take off 1 plane a minute, that causes delays.

When they mess up their crews' schedules and they do other things, that causes delays. When they fly decrepit aircraft and they have maintenance issues, that causes delays. Forty-six percent of the delays in June were due to airline operations.

How is that going to be dealt with by privatizing the safest, largest, most complex, and sophisticated air traffic control system in the world?

The second largest cause, as you can see from the chart, is bad weather. Actually, the FAA has developed a way to help deal with that and more efficiently reroute planes called Data Comm, which is in all of our major airports now so we can deal with it. So we have cut down on weather delays about as much as we probably can. There are always going to be weather delays.

Then the ATC system itself, in fact, improvements are coming there with a very sophisticated electronic flight script, which will be in all of our control towers within 3 years. It is already in our en route centers. We are told that they are using paper strips. Well, the paper strips are actually infallible. They don't have computer malfunctions, unlike their reservation and dispatch systems which frequently strand travelers.

The FAA made a business decision to have a much more sophisticated form of electronic strip which will help sort out traffic at dispatch on the ground, given the routes they are going to take automatically, and reduce congestion at airports and reduce delays in the future.

So what would those private interests do differently?

The bottom line is they would profit from it. That is all. They wouldn't make it any better.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I was just reading a message from Citizens for On Time Flights.

Now, I fly a lot and I would love to be on time more. They are talking about our aviation system here. Air traffic control is a World War II relic and saying that if we only would give it over to the private sector, i.e., the airlines, it would work better.

Well, let's see, a couple of things wrong with that statement. Number one, the greatest problem with air delays is weather. Now, actually, we are dealing with that technologically through a new system called Datacom, where, at our 55 busiest airports, the pilots and the air traffic controllers now can communicate by text and they don't have to repeat over and over on the radio the messages; many fewer misunderstandings, easier to reroute. This has been implemented by the

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I voted against H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018.

The legislation includes several provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 2.4 percent. Those who serve in uniform have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and have earned and deserve a pay raise. It also includes funding for Ukraine and Eastern Europe security initiatives to counter Russia's heightened military provocations and annexation of Crimea.

Despite these important initiatives, I have strong concerns with H.R. 2810. This legislation authorizes more than $688.3 billion, which is $70.4 billion more than the FY 2017 authorized level and $28.5 billion more than the president's request. This includes $74.6 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, an account which is not counted in the budget and is not paid for. It adds to the deficit and is used as a slush fund by the Pentagon.

Unlike every other federal agency, the Department of Defense (DOD) refuses to complete a financial audit so taxpayers know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money. In fact, a shocking report released last December exposed $125 billion in administrative waste that the Pentagon tried to bury from being viewed by the public.

I refuse to support increased bureaucratic waste at the expense of American taxpayers and our men and women in uniform. A more accountable and transparent department would ensure taxpayer dollars are directed towards the needs of our troops and the benefits they deserve, rather than buying unnecessary weapon systems, sustaining a Cold War era military force, and giving the president a blank check to fund wars Congress hasn't authorized.

I have always advocated for maintaining Congress's constitutionally- confirmed prerogative to declare war under the War Powers Act and limiting the President's authority to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress. I strongly oppose the NDAA's continued authorization of spending for wars that are not congressionally approved. The Pentagon uses the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) to continue to justify the 16 years our troops have been fighting in the Middle East. In his short time in office. President Trump has already sent troops to Iraq, Syria and elsewhere without seeking a new Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), a violation of the War Powers Act.

Additionally, the bill prohibits the closing of Guantanamo Bay, which costs more than $100 million each year to house 41 prisoners and has been used as a top recruiting tool by terrorists. Frankly, the prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a black eye for the United States, has eroded relationships with our allies, undermined U.S. missions abroad, and put U.S. citizens and our troops at risk of retaliation.

Congress can make responsible cuts to our defense budget without jeopardizing the safety of our troops or undermining our national security. Fiscal responsibility and accountability at the Pentagon would allow for funds to be better spent supporting the basic needs of our troops, meeting our obligations to veterans of past wars, and ensuring our true defense needs are prioritized

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues came to the floor this morning and said: It kind of smells like bacon in here. I said: That is because the Republicans are cooking their budget just off the floor. That is what they are doing. They are cooking up a budget with cooked books.

Here we are with a national debt of nearly $20 trillion and the highest priority on the Republican side of the aisle--reflected both in their so-called healthcare bill, which was actually tax cuts only for people who earned over $250,000 a year--is tax cuts for people who earn over $250,000 a year, particularly targeted toward those in the top one-tenth of 1 percent--those who earn millions of dollars a year.

They say that is the cure for all of America's ills: just cut their taxes, and the benefits will trickle down onto all the rest of us. I think a lot of people don't much like to be trickled on in that manner.

What are the priorities, other than tax cuts, in their budget? A massive increase in spending at the Pentagon.

Remember, the Pentagon is the only agency of the Federal Government that is unauditable. That is right. Every year, every agency of the government is subject to an audit, but not the Pentagon. They say: Hey, we can't be audited. The books are a mess. We can't be audited.

Last fall, there was a report that $125 billion went missing from the Pentagon budget. The Pentagon attempted to repress that report. God forbid we should bring any fiscal accountability to the Pentagon. They are just going to shower more money on them, in the hope that some of it gets spent on the real needs of the military. But there is no sense of responsibility there.

How are they going to get to their illusory balanced budget if they are having massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and massive increases in spending at the Pentagon, with no fiscal accountability?

Well, simple. We are just going to cut the programs that average and struggling Americans depend upon, like student financial aid. They don't know anybody at the country club whose kids need help going to college. So those programs get cut. Hungry kids? They have never met one. Never met a hungry kid. So let's cut the school lunch program again, and let's cut food stamps for families.

But they are breaking some new ground here and breaking some of the President's promises. The President promised he would not cut Medicare. Well, their proposed budget cuts Medicare. Yes, it cuts Medicare. It would cut $500 billion out of Medicare. It assumes that, instead of getting a guaranteed benefit, an earned benefit that

every American over 65 can have, you will get vouchers, and you can go into the private insurance market and do better. It sounds a little bit like the failing ObamaCare plan that they talk about all the time. Now they want to put seniors in that same boat, instead of guaranteed Medicare.

Then, of course, $1.5 trillion cuts in Medicaid. That is welfare. Well, actually, the largest recipients of Medicaid are seniors in long- term care. A lot of people are going to be surprised when grandma or granddad is out in the street or comes home and needs a lot of help and assistance and there is none to be had.

So that is the largest group.

Now, what is the second largest group of freeloaders on Medicaid?

Oh, it is kids. God forbid that kids should get medical help when they are growing up. Let's have them long-term, lifetime disabled. Deny them medical care when they are young and we will just worry about all that later. This is quite a set of priorities they are putting before us and fiscally irresponsible.

So as I have in past years, I am introducing a fiscally responsible balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, not like the Republican one that said you have to have two-thirds to increase taxes and one vote to cut taxes, no. This one would say you have to balance the budget, but you do it by prudent reductions in spending, and also you have to deal with the revenue side. And, oh, by the way, mine protects Medicare and Social Security totally from these sorts of cuts. It makes them into the entitlement programs they are supposed to be that the Republicans want to do away with in their budget.

So I think there is a better way to go forward, but just like in their fake healthcare bill, which was really disguised tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, they are now giving us a supposedly prudent fiscal budget blueprint, which, again, is huge tax cuts for the wealthy, massive increases for the Pentagon and cuts for everybody else.