Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I yield to my colleague from Louisiana, Garret Graves.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a medical issue. Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 237, the Motion to Recommit H.R. 8, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 238, H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 239, the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3249, I would have voted ``yea.'

Mr. Chair, I will vote against H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.

The legislation includes several provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 2.6 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. 5515. This legislation authorizes more than $708 billion, including $69 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) has yet to complete a financial audit; taxpayers deserve to know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money. In fact, a shocking report released in December 2016 exposed $125 billion in waste that the Pentagon tried to hide from 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 and giving the president a blank check to fund wars Congress hasn't authorized.

I have always advocated for maintaining Congress's constitutionally- continued 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 17 years our troops have been fighting in the Middle East. President Trump has already sent troops to Syria, Yemen and elsewhere without seeking a new 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. 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, it is Infrastructure Week. You can tell from all of the activity across the country: all of the rebuilding of the 140,000 bridges that need repair or replacement; the 40 percent of the national highway system that has failed to the point where we have to rebuild the whole thing, not just resurface it; and the $100 billion backlog in transit. It is all--well, actually, none of that is happening.

In fact, despite the President being right here and talking about a $1.5 trillion plan--wow, a big surprise, up by $500 billion--during the State of the Union, the net result of what this President and this administration have done is actually to reduce spending on infrastructure and put forward a paper plan that would say you are on your own.

It is called devolution; that is, we are going to say to the States and the territories: It is your obligation to build a national coordinated transportation infrastructure.

This is a grand new idea from some of the rightwing think tanks: Make the States do it.

How is that going to work?

Well, actually, it is not a new idea. We tried it once before. Actually, we tried it by default until we had the Eisenhower plan, a Republican President, to build a national highway system.

This was the net result of devolution: Kansas, Oklahoma; you build it, we will build it.

Well, Kansas built it.

What is this?

Oh, that is the State line.

This is Oklahoma: Sorry, we don't have the money to build and continue that beautiful new freeway--1956.

For 3 years, cars crashed through a wooden barrier they built at the end at the State line into Amos Sweitzer's farm field until we had a national transportation plan, from a Republican President, funded by a user fee, a gas tax, to build out the system nationwide.

And then it was Ronald Reagan who said: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We can't just have highways. We need to have transit to serve our Nation's largest cities and our hubs.

So we added transit into this.

That is all well and good. We built a system that was the envy of the world 40 years ago, 30 years ago, maybe even 25 years ago. Since then, it has been crumbling with neglect.

We haven't raised the Federal gas tax since 1993: 140,000 bridges need repair or replacement; $100 billion backlog in transit, just to build out to a state of good repair for what we have and not even give people new transit options to get out of the congestion and the traffic.

We are wasting billions of dollars a year, wasting fuel from people sitting in gridlock all around the country. They are damaging their cars through potholes, and they don't have the transit options that were promised to them.

So what is going on? Well, it seems like the Republicans love to talk about it. Oh, they just love to talk about infrastructure. Everybody loves to talk about it--we are going to fill those potholes; we are going to build those bridges; we are going to take care of you--but they refuse to fund it. That is the bottom line.

We need to fund an ambitious new national infrastructure plan: transit, roads, bridges, highways, harbors and ports, wastewater, clean water, and the list goes on and on and on.

You can't be a great nation if your people are mired in gridlock, if your roads are potholed, if your harbors are silted in, if your jetties are failing, if your wastewater systems are 50 years

old and can't take any new capacity and actually are polluting our rivers, and clean water is not available to people in some of the largest cities in the United States of America.

Where is the Federal partner? There is no Federal partner with the Republicans in charge. Let the States do it. Let's devolve this obligation to the States. That is their solution: The States should pay for it.

Well, it didn't work in the fifties. How the heck is that going to work in the 21st century?

Even if one State decides now to increase capacity to move freight-- say California wants to move all of the freight that comes into Los Angeles out of California to the rest of the Nation where it is going and bring the goods in to export from there, how is that going to work when you get to the Nevada State line and there is a two-lane road--or no road--on the other side?

This is an abject failure, and it is time for Congress to act. If the Republicans won't act, maybe we need to replace them with a party that will act to rebuild America and make us competitive in the world for the 21st century, not devolution. We need a Federal partnership. We need Federal investment. We need a coordinated 21st century national transportation system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1285, the Senate companion to my bipartisan bill, H.R. 3225, the Oregon Tribal Economic Development Act.

Last year a federally-recognized tribe in my District, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, alerted me that it was unable to obtain a commercial mortgage to purchase a storage unit facility.

A local financial institution was concerned that under the arcane Indian Non-Intercourse Act (INIA), it was afraid it would not be able to repossess the property should the tribe be unable to make mortgage payments.

Many of my colleagues are not familiar with the INIA, with good reason. The law is over 180 years old, and prohibits a tribe from buying, selling or leasing land. Under the law, Congress, not the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is required to approve every potential transaction.

Typically, the INIA has not prevented tribes from buying, selling or leasing land. However, some financial institutions, as in the case in my District, have interpreted it to mean that Congress act.

Over the years, Congress has appropriately passed laws excluding individual tribes from the INIA. First, the INIA is completely unworkable. Congress has a hard enough time passing legislation, for better or worse, that affects thousands or millions of Americans. It is not remotely possible we could pass a law every time a tribe requests to buy, sell or lease property.

Additionally, the INIA is a road block to a tribe's economic development. For hundreds of years, terrible federal Indian policy decimated tribes through displacement, disease, and discrimination. In my District, the INIA made it impossible for the Tribe to function as the sovereign nation it is to benefit its members. S. 1285 would clarify that INIA does not apply to five Oregon tribes, and only in the case of fee land. Land held in trust is not affected by this bill. It is bipartisan, and does not cost the government a dime.

It is past time to ensure Oregon tribes are allowed to engage in real property transactions without the threat of a 180 year-old law standing in the way.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I think we can agree on one thing. The status quo is not acceptable. Dispersed around the country in wet pools, in insecure casks--right. We need to deal with that. This is not the perfect solution, and it is destined to fail in the Senate.

Why do we commission blue ribbon commissions of experts--are we the experts?--and then ignore their advice? They made four major points: the solution must be adaptive, it must be staged, it must be consent- based, and it must be transparent.

This bill assumes we are going into Yucca Mountain, which has been proven to be geologically unstable and unsuitable. Therefore, this amendment should be adopted. The bill should fail.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the adoption of the amendments en bloc and recommend them to my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Obviously, the gentleman has had significant experience with these problems in his part of the world that I think are somewhat unique, and I can also understand we want to expedite the review of people's claims. The major concerns we have are, one, that it appears, under the wording, that there would be no timeframe. So 20, 30 years after a disaster, someone could come in and file for arbitration. And secondly, by lowering the cost to any project that is $100,000, we have no idea what the scope of that would be or how many appeals that might generate. But I think the general idea about using the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals does have merit to expedite citizens' claims against the government agency.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I will say to the gentleman that my staff tells me they did contact his staff, they did express concerns. They said: Thank you for your concerns. And then, next thing we knew, the amendments were filed. And then she still said: We'd be happy to work with you. And we get no response.

I think there may be kind of a staff issue going on here. Again, I have some concerns about, particularly, the unlimited time to apply and other details, perhaps.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Again, as I look at the drafting--and, again, my staff says they did reach out to your staff--I am confused when you get to the 50 percent part, whether it would have to be exactly 50 percent or otherwise. I agree, and I think that it would be good to push for more flexibility.

For instance, I have a manufacturer of yurts in my district which are used in many places around the world as temporary housing. The military uses them, and others. I was approached by someone representing Airbnb about vacant houses they had, vacation homes in Puerto Rico, that could have been

used when they were saying there was absolutely no housing for any emergency workers anywhere. And certainly there could be lower cost alternatives.

I still remember when FEMA, I think it was under the Bush administration, bought a bunch of trailers that couldn't be used because they had some of that crappy Chinese formaldehyde-exuding wallboard in them, and they were not habitable. We are still importing that junk from China, by the way. So I agree they could be much more flexible.

I think this amendment, again, as written, is problematic, but I certainly agree with the intent of the amendment to look at other lower cost alternatives. However, they should meet at least some minimal standards for sanitary facilities and other things. So I, again, have concerns about the drafting.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

I look forward to working with the gentleman. Just on the issue of the formaldehyde: we have laws and standards in this country still, despite Mr. Pruitt, that regulate the amount of formaldehyde that can be put into plywood. I have many people in my district who make plywood without using formaldehyde glues, and the Chinese put in massive amounts of formaldehyde glue, do not meet our standards, but we don't enforce or prohibit the importation, though we are about to file a case on that issue to prohibit them poisoning the American people. So that is another subject for another day.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say, I have read the amendment, and I can't quite follow it, my staff can't quite follow it, the gentleman's staff couldn't quite explain it. The gentleman has explained it in a way that this language may or may not reflect.

FEMA has said they don't understand it. They may well be doing something regarding public facilities that is not following the intent of the law, but again, I am not certain about this as the solution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have in my district office something called the ``casework staff.'' We do have disasters in Oregon, particularly floods. And we have had instances, apparently like the one that this legislation is trying to address, where we have gotten these improper decisions reversed and my communities reimbursed, handled by my casework staff.

Here, we are going to legislate. Now, apparently, there was a problem in the gentleman's district. Too bad his casework staff didn't take care of it. But the way this is written, here is the language: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, FEMA shall deem any covered disaster assistance to have been properly procured, provided, and utilized, and shall restore any funding of covered disaster assistance previously provided but subsequently withdrawn or deobligated.''

It isn't specific to the gentleman's problem. This would be any community, anybody anywhere who might have legitimately misspent some disaster assistance, gets it back. This is so global. We might as well just not have a process to review disaster assistance and see whether it was properly spent, because this says, if you have got it and you spent it, that is all proper. I mean, it is deemed--deemed that every expenditure is legitimate, even if the money was diverted somehow.

So, again, I am not certain who the other side is using for drafting assistance, but I recommend leg counsel.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman pointed out, Essential Air Service, to ensure that all Americans have access to something that is critical to economic development and, basically, livability for many smaller isolated communities, is paid for out of the trust fund. The trust fund is composed of fees paid by the airlines, by passengers, and by foreign airlines overflying the United States of America.

This doesn't add to the debt, unlike this tax bill we passed. I know that the six largest banks in America saw a $4 billion windfall in tax cuts in one-quarter. It is projected they will have a $20 billion windfall by the end of the year.

We are going to borrow $20 billion to give to profitable banks, including Wells Fargo, that just paid a $1 billion fine. Now they are getting the money back because we gave them a tax break.

But he is concerned about the debt and the deficit, so we have got to screw the small communities in America and take away their air service. I think there are better ways to deal with our debt and deficit, and this doesn't add to it because it is paid for out of the trust fund.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here, and the problem actually is the Department of Transportation. They launched a new carrier monitoring system known as CSA to make data available, but they have yet to establish a test and apply that data.

So even though the data is available, the Republicans have adopted amendments--other Republicans who are here today--that prohibit DOT from finalizing a safety fitness determination rule. So there is data out there, but there is no bright line test.

The best relief that we could provide would be to force DOT, in the very near future, to issue a safety fitness ruling as soon as possible and also raise the minimum insurance requirement--$750,000, it has been that since 1980. It doesn't cover much in a truck accident.

We want to have people be able to get legal recourse and compensation, but we also don't want to give the brokers an impossible task, which is what they have now: How do they choose someone who meets the safety fitness requirements that the administration has yet to promulgate and Congress is preventing them from promulgating?

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and strongly support the motion to recommit.

This is a historic bill, the FAA bill. I want to thank my staff: Kathy Dedrick; Alex Burkett; Rachel Carr; Michael Tien; Luke Strimer; Janet Erickson; David Napoliello; Helena Zyblikewycz; Auke Mahar- Piersma; Ward McCarragher, who has moved on; Alexa Old Crow; and Jamie Harrell.

I want to congratulate the outgoing chair, Frank LoBiondo. It is his last major bill in Congress, and Frank was great to work with. I hope he has a great life after Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

I am pleased to be here today with the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Shuster; the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. LoBiondo; and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking member.

This bill also includes important provisions of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, something that previously passed the House and somehow escaped the attention of the Senate. We are sending it to them again in the hope they might notice if it is part of this package.

Last week was tragic: the first death on a U.S.-flagged passenger aircraft since 2009, and that just followed an alarming news story by ``60 Minutes'' a few days before about an FAA oversight of a low-cost carrier.

As a result, Ranking Member Larsen and I have sent a letter to the Secretary of Transportation demanding information on the oversight of the industry. We want to make sure that the FAA is being the watchdog that they need to be.

It was many years ago, after the horrible ValuJet tragedy, the committee had already rejected my amendment to say to strip away the promotional duty of the FAA. Then, after the horrible ValuJet crash, when it turned out it was an incompetent subcontractor to a maintenance station, a totally preventable accident, they suddenly decided to change their mind and decided to include my amendment and remove the promotional authority.

The FAA's principal duty is to protect the safety of the flying public, so we have got to be sure they are doing everything needed to do that.

There is an important provision in the bill, long overdue, to give flight attendants a 10-hour minimum rest. Think of the schedule now--8 hours: Oh, well, the plane landed. You have got to get off the plane. You have got to get out of the airport. You have got to get in a cab or a van. You have got to go to the hotel. You get to return, reverse all that around, and do that.

How much sleep are you going to get?

So, finally, we are going to get the 10-hour requirement--again, long overdue. Flight attendants are critical safety personnel on the airplane. They cannot be fatigued, just like a pilot can't be fatigued.

I have another concern that we are using computer simulations to meet the FAA standard for evacuation of a plane mandated in 90 seconds. As they jam more and more and more seats into these planes, I wonder if we have reached a point where we can no longer meet that standard, and we are going to have that. We are going to have the inspector general look at that topic and see whether or not we need to revisit it.

You know, it is critical that we be able to get people off as quickly as possible. The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority led this many years ago after the Manchester accident, with the spacing for the over-wing exit, something that took me 7 years to get done here. But they have also dropped in more strictures on hand baggage and other things and made that part of the briefing, which we don't get because we don't want to scare people. Well, we need to be letting people know that they can't take stuff with them if they have to evacuate quickly.

The FAA certification process, we have known for years, it needs reform, and this bill answers that call. It mandates a top-to-bottom reform of the process by which the FAA certifies new airplane engine and component designs. This will help our manufacturers become much more competitive in the world market and introduce their products more quickly to stay ahead of the market, but they will still be certified safe.

The bill also contains the text of the Flags of Convenience Don't Fly Here Act. There are some who would turn the airline industry into the cruise line industry, where planes would be crewed by the cheapest labor you can find somewhere in the world. It is being done already with contract crews out of Asia for a so-called European airline, Norwegian Air, and they are circumventing the process that the EU is bound to under our Open Skies Agreement.

The bill, unfortunately, lets stand something that Congress adopted in 2012, over my objections, which is to

say we cannot have a higher standard than the International Civil Aviation Authority on lithium batteries.

Lithium batteries are incredibly, incredibly dangerous on aircraft. We have already lost two 747s, and I will discuss this more when we get to my amendment.

It is time to remove the prohibition and let the FAA regulate as they see fit regarding lithium batteries and not bind ourselves to an international group that is captive of other special interests. Just eight lithium batteries can take down an aircraft in a thermal runaway. So that, we will discuss later.

This bill also, unfortunately, does not increase the cap on passenger facility charge. I would observe, flying a lot, that there are more and more and more tarmac delays because: I am sorry, your gate is occupied. Oh, the alley to the gate is full of planes. Oh, this, that.

A lot of airports are bonded out. We haven't allowed them, since 2000, to increase the passenger facility charge, and so we are going to continue to have those delays. Until they can build larger terminals and they can build more gates, that is going to continue.

We are also putting in some new mandates on the airports, which I support in this bill, having to do with pets and changing rooms and those sorts of things; but, again, we are not allowing them to get any increase in revenues to meet these new Federal mandates. I haven't given that up, but, obviously, we are not going to get it in this bill.

You know, NextGen will be all for naught. NextGen is progressing well, despite what some say, but if we don't have enough terminals and gates at those terminals, as the former Administrator Randy Babbitt said:

We can land them with closer spacing, we can do everything

in the world, but at the end of the day at La Guardia Airport

when it is a one-runway operation, you can still only land

them once every 54 seconds.

There are physical limits on the ground all around the country. Even if we enhance air traffic movement, avoiding weather and all that, we are going to be constrained at the airports unless the airports have what they need to make these investments.

There are a number of amendments that will improve safety and efficiency, and I look forward to discussing those here on the floor.

There is one amendment which is cropping up in this bill that relates to trucking. The gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) will offer it. It has been offered before in the House. It has never gone anywhere in the Senate. I predict the same thing will happen here.

The bottom line is there is an issue from a court case that could be solved with a rifle shot, so to speak, regarding interstate commerce. Instead, despite what the proponents have told Representative Denham and others, this language would preempt every single State wage and hour law that pertains to trucking in the United States of America. The only strictures would be the Federal hours of service and the Federal minimum wage. The rest would be wiped out by this amendment because of the unfortunate language. There is a real underlying problem, and it could be solved much more discretely.

But beyond that, this is a great bill.

I again thank the chairmen of the full committee and subcommittee, the ranking member, and other members of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment offered by the gentleman. He listed a number of provisions. I don't want to be repetitive, but I think the call to action regarding uncontained airliner engine failures is critical. That is actually the second uncontained failure of that engine with Southwest Airlines in 18 months, which means that somewhere turbine blades are not a life- limited part. There is something amiss in the manufacturing process, and we need to get to the bottom of that.

We also need to be sure that the proper testing is being done to ensure their integrity as the planes continue to fly.

It also has some language regarding incidents of sexual misconduct on flights I support, but I am preparing and will offer a broader stand- alone provision bill on that subject in the near future.

It modestly increases funding levels for aviation programs and includes a $1 billion annual infusion from the general fund for certain AIP projects, principally for small airports in rural communities.

This falls far short of meeting the needs of all airports and all the gates and terminal work we need, as I mentioned earlier in discussing the lack of a PFC in this bill.

Finally, it creates a newly named position in the FAA, that would be chief technology officer. Currently, the department administrator acts as the chief technology officer. So I am not quite certain what that accomplishes, but I will certainly look forward to monitoring that position and the progress and reports on NextGen that that person produces in the near future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the adoption of these amendments en bloc. This grouping includes many Democratic and Republican amendments, and each, as the chairman has said, has been approved by the majority and the minority for consideration en bloc.

Among the amendments in this package is my comprehensive solution to the ever-growing list of safety and security concerns that have resulted from an unwise provision of law adopted in 2012.

That law prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from promulgating any rule or regulation relating to drones flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Let me repeat: any rule or regulation relating to drones flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

This was put in at the behest of model aircraft folks, who have a long

and very responsible history, know the rules of the road in the air, but now there are millions of other people now operating relatively inexpensive drones. Things have changed pretty dramatically in that time period, and we sorely need some reasonable regulations.

There are very strong national security concerns expressed by Homeland and Secret Service and others, and they are saying that basically they are going to hold back any rules regarding drones until they can be assured that the operators and the drone can be identified, which the commercial people can easily do.

It would be an expense for the recreational manufacturers so there is a competing amendment that is more conciliatory toward the Chinese drone manufacturers, which is a concern I don't have.

Sooner or later, one of these little toy drones is going to take down an aircraft and people are going to die. Plain and simple. They have already conducted tests on the hull, and they have found that a small quadcopter can cause fatal damage to aircraft controls. And they haven't even done the ingestion test yet into a jet engine, a turbine engine, where you will see more uncontained failures like the one we saw last week.

So it is critical that we get a handle on this and the proliferation of these with people with little or no experience or knowledge of aviation rules. Countless stakeholders are supporting my version, which would be the commercial drone industry, U.S. airlines and pilots, air traffic controllers, aircraft manufacturers, State and local entities.

They have all been asking for modification or repeal of that provision prohibiting the FAA from regulating recreational drone users. Until this is done, our skies will be less safe and the true potential of the commercial drone industry will never be unlocked because of the security concerns that I already mentioned.

My amendment, among other things, grants the FAA the authority to impose standards on recreational users as needed, ensure the safety of our airspace system going forward, including requirements remotely identifying and tracking drone operators. That first step is critical to protecting sensitive facilities, assets, and addressing the concerns of Homeland Security, Secret Service, and others.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), my neighbor to the north.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am in favor of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I actually, recently, had a conversation with the Acting FAA Administrator on this very subject. I think it is something that could help mitigate. Since we have moved to performance-based navigation and changed for more efficient approaches to safe fuel, the airlines are benefiting tremendously, but it has concentrated the noise over a narrow area.

I have also asked the FAA if it would be possible to vary the approaches on performance-based so that you are not always, every day, every hour, every minute, going over exactly the same position. I think that is also something they should look at.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, although I rose in opposition, my principal concern is this was a very, very long, difficult negotiation as we adopted the FAST Act, and all parties agreed on these five pilot projects.

We gave the task, as we normally do, to the Department of Transportation to draw up a rule that will establish and implement the pilot program, but DOT has not yet acted to establish those rules. So I have concerns about putting strictures on the Department of Transportation before they have had an opportunity to implement the rule, which, hopefully, will be soon forthcoming. I assume it is not one of these rules that the President has held up from being issued, since it would be something beneficial, if properly done.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time.

We have already heard a lot today about noise complaints, and State 2 are very noisy aircraft. They were phased out of revenue service about 15 years ago. They are noisy. They consume more fuel. And I am not quite certain what uses these five or so airports might have and what this pilot program would look like. So I have a number of concerns about the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 42.

Mr. Chairman, years ago, people used to refer to the tombstone mentality at the FAA, with a lack of oversight where fatal accidents happened, loss of rudder control and other things like that that could have been prevented with proper maintenance. We have moved beyond that point to a much more engaged and active FAA, except Congress has imposed a tombstone mentality on the FAA.

At the behest of Chinese battery manufacturers and large firms in the

U.S. who utilize those batteries, an amendment was placed into a previous bill that prohibits the FAA from exercising its judgment about the safety of the carriage of lithium batteries on airplanes. Instead, we are bound to an international convention, the ICAO, which is very responsive to third-world countries and China and others in terms of seeking lowest common denominator regulation of anything that they can.

Normally, we lead the world. Normally, we would say: No, get this stuff off aircraft. We have lost two 747s--two 747s. They were cargo aircraft. They went down because of lithium batteries. It only takes a very few lithium batteries.

Do we have the lithium battery picture?

This is packaging of lithium batteries. This is what happens with those lithium batteries if just one overheats and starts a spontaneous reaction--again, catastrophic to the aircraft.

Now we are temporarily under an ICAO rule that says that they should not be carried in passenger aircraft, but they are still being regularly carried in the holds of cargo aircraft.

Now, we have oceans. We have freighters. They have containers. You could plan ahead.

Let's say 2 months from now we are going to say these things don't go in the air anymore because, okay, yeah, you are right; there are only a couple of pilots who are going to lose their lives. It kind of concerns me. Well, what happens if the 747 comes down in a populated area? Oops, a lot more people lose their lives.

So you can say 2 months from now they are not going to be on aircraft anymore and the industry can set up a new supply chain of putting these things in containers and shipping them across the ocean in a way that will not endanger people on the ground and, in all probability, will not lead to fatalities if there were an uncontained spontaneous ignition of these batteries.

Even worse, this administration has designated that the--did you ever hear of this?--Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, which is a little tiny, pretty dysfunctional agency, will take over the authority for the regulation and the negotiation of the regulation of lithium batteries from the FAA.

What does PHMSA, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, know about aviation? Nothing. Zero. Nada. Nothing.

So I guess, again, we are seeing the clout of the manufacturers and the Chinese battery manufacturers. Theoretically, they are safer now because they can only be charged to 30 percent, but often the Chinese just kind of forget to do it that way and put them on the planes anyway.

So this is an accident waiting to happen. It is an imposition of a tombstone mentality on the FAA by Congress. It says, until there is another proven crash due to lithium batteries, we can't regulate.

Come on. Really? Another proven crash, we can't regulate?

Let's give the FAA the authority to regulate these batteries. They could probably develop containers, maybe, that they could go in and still be on aircraft, but there are other ways of moving these batteries in world commerce.

So I would urge adoption of my amendment and the repeal of the tombstone mentality mandate on the FAA.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Chairman, this doesn't tell the FAA nor mandate the FAA to regulate lithium batteries. It would allow the status quo, which means the FAA would have the authority to determine whether they represent an inordinate risk and there should be strictures put upon their transport, whether it is containers or other strictures, as opposed to following the lowest common denominator international organization.

You know, airplane manufacturers see the risk. According to the International Coordination Council for Aerospace Industries Association, which includes Boeing and Airbus, they say: ``Existing cargo compartment fire protection systems . . . are unable to suppress or extinguish a fire involving significant quantities of lithium batteries . . . . Therefore, continuing to allow the carriage of lithium batteries within today's transport category aircraft cargo compartments is an unacceptable risk to the air transport industry.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This seems very commonsense to me.

Earlier in the en bloc, my amendment was adopted, which would give the FAA authority to begin regulation of the small drones, which currently has been prohibited by a statute earlier adopted by Congress.

If this passes, that will allow the FAA, if my amendment stands in conference, to adopt this commonsense rule. Should my amendment not be adopted in conference with the Senate, and we pass this, the FAA would not have the authority to prohibit arming of small drones since they are prohibited from regulating them. Hopefully, both things will occur.

Mr. Chairman, I recommend adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is representing very well his constituents' concerns. We had an earlier discussion on the floor about the aircraft noise. An amendment was adopted to have the FAA study the speed of approach and take-off, which can dramatically reduce the noise impact.

I have also asked the FAA to look at establishing alternate performance-based navigation routes so they are not using the same route every day over the same houses and the same neighborhoods.

When I first saw this amendment, it seemed to me innocuous since it seems to follow the basic requirement in the

controller handbook, FAA Order 7110.65, section 561, which addresses this issue. However, we have been contacted by the National Air Traffic Controllers union, and they have expressed grave concerns that they think it may have unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, they just contacted us, so we haven't been able to get the details of their concerns. So in that case, I would have to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a perpetual debate here on the floor whenever it comes to the expenditure of Federal tax dollars on projects that are covered by Davis-Bacon, as would be projects under the Airport Improvement Program and other related activities by the

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

Mr. Chair, look around the country. There are many States

that have not adopted a minimum wage that exceeds the Federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour. That is pretty pathetic.

My State is one of many that has chosen to far exceed that minimum wage, but if we do away with--this says that federally funded contracts must receive the local prevailing wage for their work. In Oregon, we have recognized that with a higher minimum wage, so our prevailing wages are going to be higher than some State that only follows the Federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour.

So what might some contractor do? Oh, I can go over here and hire people who are used to earning $7.50 an hour. I am going to import them into Oregon. Of course, you are going to still have a problem with our minimum wage law, but this is what this is about is to find less expensive labor and move it around the country, and that, I believe, is a disservice to the working people of the United States.

I would urge Congress, as it has done every other time this amendment has been offered, to reject it on a broad bipartisan basis.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

These amendments, en bloc, have been reviewed, both by the majority and the minority, and there is consensus on their merit. I urge my colleagues to support them.

Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), I would say first that I strongly support his amendment and tried to work with the former FAA Administrator to rectify this issue that led to this extraordinary and unnecessary loss of life.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chair, I offered a narrow fix for this in what was true interstate commerce because of the potential confusion between Federal hours of service and State hours of service, and that was rejected.

This is an incredibly broad preemption. It is not as stated. For instance, we just heard you have to pull over, no matter where you are. No. If you don't take your rest break, you have to be paid, but you don't have to stop and pull over.

Beyond that, this would preempt paid rest breaks, paid meal breaks, paid sick leave, paid family leave, payment for time detained at a loading dock, payment for anything other than a flat rate by the load.

This is an extraordinary preemption that we have here. The drivers are already exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. So they can't get overtime. If we wipe out the State laws and there is no existing Federal law, truck drivers are really getting it stuck to them here.

In fact, this amendment would expand Federal preemption over trucking operations to include, for the first time, wages and working conditions, something Congress never contemplated in 1994.

It is opposed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the largest trucking organization; the Teamsters; American Association for Justice; and numerous safety groups. This is not as it is being presented. This is overly broad, and it should be opposed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

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

If you simply pick up a load in the Port of Los Angeles and drive 10 miles, that is deemed interstate commerce.

The problem I was trying to solve with a narrow amendment version was to say if someone is coming in from Nevada, crosses the State line, there would be confusion. That is truly interstate commerce.

What would apply?

The Federal hours of service, State hours of service, et cetera.

There could be a narrow fix to this issue. This is a preemption. If you read the law, basically, from working to the full extent permitted or at such times as permitted under such section, or imposing any additional obligations on motor carriers if such employees work to the full extent or at such times as permitted under such section.

So this would be a preemption in all 50 States of whatever additional conditions they have put in place.

Many truck drivers are horribly abused already. We have done away with detention time, and we have put time limits on when they can drive, for safety reasons. They are sitting at some warehouse facility for hours, earning nothing, unless we can have States with additional laws. If we aren't going to have Federal detention time, perhaps States can help with these problems. We do not want abused, tired truck drivers out on the road. We want them to be able to earn a living wage.

I have met with drivers out of the port numerous times who are in these endless deals to theoretically buy their truck that they never get to buy, and some of them are not even taking home $100 a week and working many, many hours. We need to stop these abuses. This is only going to make things worse.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, there aren't too many of us here on the floor today who were here in 1996, when I supported a balanced budget amendment. It did pass the House. It failed by one vote in the Senate.

Had it become law, George Bush could not have invaded Iraq and simultaneously cut taxes and blown the projected surplus into a huge deficit and debt.

But here we are today.

Now, this debate was actually scheduled for April 1. You know, April Fools' Day. But the House was on its Easter recess, so this is as soon as they could bring it up on the floor.

But it is an April fool. This is an April fool.

Now, we had one colleague call it chutzpah. I was trying to think of ways to describe it: dissimulation, insincerity, false piousness, hypocrisy.

Not this balanced budget amendment; not at this time.

They have just cut revenues by $3 trillion. We are projecting a deficit of $1 trillion in 2 years, and they are saying they want to cut taxes more.

Well, then that means something else has got to go. And Speaker Ryan has already talked about what the something else is. It is Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Those are the things that have got to go.

Well, there is a dirty, little secret about Social Security. I was actually using this on 9/11. I will have to get an updated version.

But there actually is a Social Security trust fund, and this is a depository instrument for the Social Security trust fund, and it is here backed by the full faith and credit of the government of the United States of America to be paid to the Federal Old-age and Survivors Insurance Fund.

There are $3 trillion that have been collected from every working American in the Social Security trust fund.

Now, we have an aging population. There is a problem, but it could be fixed. But the point is, under this amendment, if it was law today, Social Security benefits would be cut today because, under this amendment, Social Security could only spend its income, which this year was $40 billion less than its outlays.

What did it do? It cashed in some of its $3 trillion of assets and they paid full Social Security benefits.

So if this little dream that they have here going passed, every American would have seen their Social Security reduced by $643 this year, and every year that number would grow, while the $3 trillion already collected from the American people to pay benefits would never be paid out. Talk about false promises to the American people. That is one heck of a false promise.

I have introduced a balanced budget amendment that makes a little more sense. It can't have these OCO, overseas contingency operation, funds where we shower $50 billion, $100 billion on the Pentagon, and it doesn't count. We are borrowing the money. It is creating debt, but it doesn't count. It is off budget. Don't worry about it.

Under my amendment, unless you had a declared war, unless Congress had the guts to declare a war when we have to fight someone overseas, you couldn't have that kind of overseas contingency operation fund and do money off the books.

My balanced budget amendment also would protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds from those who would rob from that trust fund and begin to immediately reduce benefits for Social Security and Medicare.

This is a ruse. Talk about the most drunken sailor spending money and then, whoa, I have got a wicked headache. Let's pass a balanced budget amendment. Maybe that will cure it. It ain't going to cure it. We need fiscal responsibility around here, and it has got to be a balance of rescinding some of their obscene tax cuts--$3 trillion worth--which would go a long way toward helping move us toward a balanced budget, and imposing a little fiscal discipline on the Pentagon.

The Pentagon has yet to be audited. The only agency of the Federal Government that cannot be audited happens to get the largest, single discretionary grant of money every year. Once, I did manage to pass an amendment on the floor with Representative Frelinghuysen to require an audit. Guess what? That disappeared in the conference committee because the Pentagon can't be audited, doesn't want to be audited, and they just need more money. Don't worry, they will spend it wisely.

So let's talk about real fiscal discipline around here, real balance, and a real balanced budget amendment that protects the assets of the Social Security trust fund and Medicare.

The people don't care about that. They want to kill it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ward W. McCarragher, who has served in many capacities with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the last quarter century, including the last 20 years as the Chief Democratic Counsel to the Committee. As a Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I have had the privilege of working with Ward for the last 25 years, and most closely since 2015 when I took over as Ranking Member of the Committee. As Ranking Member, I have come to rely on his expertise in both transportation policy and Congressional process in advancing important policy measures to improve the lives of American families.

Hailing from Kenosha, Wisconsin, and a proud Wisconsin Badgers and Green Bay Packers fan, Ward started his Congressional service back in 1989 as a foreign policy analyst for the Congressional Research Service. After subsequently attending law school and serving as a legal intern to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ward returned to Washington, D.C. in 1993 as an intern for Chairman Norman Y. Mineta (D-CA) and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. That same year, he was appointed by Chairman Mineta as Associate Counsel of the Committee's Economic Development Subcommittee and, in 1995, he

was appointed Counsel to the Public Buildings and Economic Development Subcommittee and the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. In 1998, Ranking Member James L. Oberstar (D-MN) appointed Ward to be the Chief Democratic Counsel to the Committe, where he has served with distinction ever since, including under Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) prior to me.

Ward has helped guide virtually every transportation law enacted over the last two decades through the legislative process and the last four major reauthorizations of surface transportation programs, including the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 2015. He also worked tirelessly over the last two decades to combat efforts to eliminate funding for, and privatize, Amtrak, our Nation's passenger railroad.

Ward was also integral in negotiating Federal policy following the 9/ 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., including the enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, which created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and enhanced aviation security overall, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.

Ward is the consummate public servant who possesses the rare combination of vision and grit. He has spent his career working vigorously to ensure that government works for the greater benefit of hard-working American families, while still attending to the minor, but certainly necessary, details. He has been a tireless internal advocate for Congressional oversight of Federal agencies, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, ensuring that Federal resources are utilized consistent with Congressional intent and for the betterment of the Nation. He is also a rare master on the internal workings of the Committee structure and the Congress, meticulously ensuring that established processes are followed, and that the views of elected officials, whether in the majority or minority, are respected. And he does this all while ensuring that no Committee document is missing a comma.

As the longest currently serving staffer on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Ward's dedication to the Committee, his institutional memory and his constant professionalism will be greatly missed by Members on both sides of the aisle. While Ward is leaving the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, he will remain a strong advocate for smart, effective public transportation policy through his positon with the American Public Transportation Association. His expertise and counsel will be missed by all who follow transportation policy on Capitol Hill, but will greatly benefit all those who rely on public transportation.

I want to thank Ward for his years of service and his dedication to public service. I wish him, his wife, Marie, and his children, Ryan, Colin, and Megan all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, on March 21, 2018, I was unavoidably delayed and not present for the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: on Roll Call Vote 120, on Motion to Recommit With Instructions to H.R. 5247, I would have voted Aye, and on Roll Call Vote 121, on Passage of H.R. 5247, I would have voted No.

Mr. Speaker, on March 13, 2018, I was not present for votes due to flight delays. If I had been present, I would have voted:

On Roll Call vote 102, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 5247, I would have voted No.

On Roll Call vote 103, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4465, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays, I was unable to vote on H.R. 4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. I would have voted against this legislation. Changing the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA) review process timeline from every ten years to every seven will drive up the deficit, and gives financial regulators little time to implement recommendations. I was especially appalled with

the Rules Committee's adoption of an amendment to allow Congress to raid the Federal Reserve to pay for this legislation.

I also disagreed with the provision that includes the CFPB in the EGRPRA review. This is unnecessary and duplicative, as the CFPB is already subject to a review of its rules every five years.

Most importantly, I have serious concerns with shifting the mandate that regulators identify ``outdated and unnecessary'' regulations to a mandate that regulators limit regulatory burdens. Directing regulators to prioritize limiting ``cost, liability risk, and other burdens,'' would further reduce regulations for large banks, payday lenders, and thousands of other financial services companies without consideration for how these rules safeguard consumers.