Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of discussion as we gather to talk about the role of government and almost everything that we do day to day. I think most Americans, as they go to work and they look at how the government's role is in their lives, they don't really give the government a lot of thought. They want to be left alone.

They are willing to pay some measure of taxes to have things that we all agree on, like schools, roads, bridges, stoplights, national defense, other things. We like to see efficient government. We like to see it small. We like to see it without waste.

If there are things that other services can provide without it being done by government, we like choices. We like privatization. We like the private sector.

But there are certain things, Mr. Speaker, that the government does have a role in. This was recognized by perhaps the finest American we ever produced, Abraham Lincoln, when he said: ``The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves.''

Mr. Speaker, there are three sectors in which the government does have a role; and we as conservatives might want limited government, efficiency, and lack of waste, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want similar things, but they might approach it a different way. We all, as Americans, have a moral obligation to protect the security of the United States of America. We have just seen that with the passage of the National Defense Authorization. But what I would like to address today is a breach in one of our pillars of national security with a proposal with our aerospace.

The three areas that we must safeguard and protect are our national defense, our national intelligence, and our national aerospace.

We are considering now an AIRR Act, H.R. 2997, which would take the Federal Aviation Administration's reauthorization, which we have to do, and it will pretty much remove Federal control of air traffic controllers and the control of our aerospace and put it into private industry. Many of us, in a bipartisan fashion, have grave concerns with this. I am one of them.

If you look at H.R. 2997, what you will find is that the President has diminished authority. In the 1980s, when air traffic controllers, through their unions, went on strike and they said, ``We are not going to play; we are going to picket,'' and it put the United States at risk, Ronald Reagan warned them by saying, ``If you do that, you are fired.''

They said, ``Oh, he is not going to do that. How is he going to control the skies?''

The President, acting on his constitutional responsibilities, fired them. He took control, as he should have, and air traffic controllers, by the thousands, were removed, and others were put in their place.

H.R. 2997 would remove this type of authority that the President of the United States would have. If this bill were to become law, President Reagan would not have been able to do what he did in the 1980s.

It also removes title 31 authority. What is that? Well, title 31 authority is how we, through the appropriations process and through the power of the purse, control and oversee government so that we, the people, and their duly-elected representatives are able to control the aspects and agencies of government; because without this, without this power of the purse and without this powerful oversight tool, you might have bureaucracies become an entity unto themselves.

So title I authority is vital that we have those hearings, controls, measures, and prohibitions so that even if something is decided on, money is not authorized, and, therefore, it gets shut down. Title 31 authority in H.R. 2997 would be removed.

There are also no other oversight provisions that would be put in its place. Why? Because what it is doing is it will take the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic control system and it will put it into the hands of a private company.

Now, I am all about privatization in business and choices, and there are a lot of things. But going back to the Lincoln quote, there are certain collective things that we cannot do as individuals and that the government has a role.

If waste, inability to procure, inability to modernize, or inefficiencies were a condemnation to privatize everything, then why don't we just privatize national defense? They waste money. They have trouble procuring. They have trouble modernizing. Why don't we just turn over national defense to the private sector?

We would never do such a thing because it would place all of us at risk.

Yet we are going to take the national aerospace control of the skies, and as it stacks up--and there is a lot that goes on up there, as I will illustrate--we are going to put that into the hands of a private company.

This private company would have a board, but it will not have title I authority oversight, and under its current form, the President will have diminished authority only in time of war to take control of the aerospace system.

This is a bad idea.

It also transfers all DOD intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense intelligence agencies, Homeland Security support to this private entity.

Today, the FAA does a lot of things with their air traffic controllers. What do they do? At any given moment, and as many of you flew into Washington, D.C., to come and see your government at work, you flew on an airline. Sometimes there are delays. You get it. There is weather. There are different things. Other times, you are sitting there and it is clear as a bell and you are wondering what is the holdup.

Part of the reason, unknown to even the pilots on the tarmac, is that there are missions that our military performs. There are national intelligence missions that are being performed and surveillance missions that are being performed. There are homeland security and border security missions that are being performed.

When they take priority, they also take priority for air traffic control and the clearances, and many times things will have to be rerouted to accommodate it. The American public and even the pilots on the planes are none the wiser.

Now, under H.R. 2997, the problem that you will have is that all of this authority will now be coordinated with a private entity. I will explain why this is a problem in a moment.

As a conservative, I am all about privatization where it makes sense, but when it comes to national security, as a combat infantryman, a veteran of three wars, someone who served my country in uniform for 21 years, we must protect this great Republic, and there is a role for the United States Government when it comes to our national security.

When we have strayed from this and tried to privatize certain sectors, our greatest embarrassments with national intelligence have been when we have contracted to private entities for that collection. Think Edward Snowden. Think leaks in government with classified information getting out.

Where is that occurring? It is occurring with subcontractors and private entities who we were assured when we passed these laws: Oh, they will be under the same agencies, under the same systems, and everything will be fine. Trust us.

And then we in Congress have authorized that. And then what? We sit at our hearings and our committees with our bony fingers and our red faces, saying: Mr. Secretary or Mr. Agency Head, how did you let this happen?

All we have to do is look in the mirror. When we take these controls away on things that we must have a government role in--defense, intelligence, and aerospace--we are creating the very construct that causes these problems.

Our alliances were shaken. Our country was embarrassed. Our intelligence was placed at risk. Operators in the field were exposed, some even harmed, because contractors let it get out of hand.

Look at national defense. We see some of the same things. Some of the most embarrassing episodes that we have had have been with security contractors in national defense. We were told: Hey, you don't have time for that; we don't have the budget for that; we can do this more efficiently; you don't need to do this. Yet some of the most black-eyed moments have been with contractors.

Well, what about on the administrative side? That would make sense.

I see my colleague, Representative Ted Lieu here. He and I have been very frustrated in seeing some of these types of decisions being made with contracting. The Office of Personnel Management: Hey, let's take this away from the Department of Defense, and let's move all of these classified personnel records, and we will have a clearinghouse, and we can contract that. Everything will be good. You don't have to devote time and treasure to do this.

Yet 25 million exposed records later of those that held security clearances--Mr. Lieu and I both receiving a letter in the mail saying that we had been exposed because we held top secret clearances in the military. And yet when we made these decisions, we said this will be really good if we move this to contracting. It will be more efficient. It will save us money, and it will be just as good. Well, that was not the case.

So now that takes us to national aerospace. What are we talking about here? Tens of thousands of aircraft in the air in flights every single day.

And if it is so broken a system, when was the last time a major, fatal airline crash happened? Can't remember? You would have to go back a ways, which I will cover in a moment. But let's stick with these national security concerns.

H.R. 2997 diminishes the power of the President, takes away title I authority, does not replace it with any other congressional controls. Sure, it has congressional review for fee changes or rulemaking, but nothing else.

It transfers Department of Defense, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Border Security, all of these things, and it places them under a coordination with a private entity. And they assure us, oh, it will be the same system we have now; everything is going to be just fine.

But the problem is that a private entity, unlike today--did you know every air traffic controller in an air traffic control tower takes an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Most people didn't even know that, to include those that crafted H.R. 2997.

They take an oath of office. They have to be a United States citizen. Why? Because it is vital to our national security.

Now we want to change that because it is efficient, and it is a broken, archaic system.

Well, we are all about modernizing. That is common ground we can all agree on. We need to modernize. But we do not need to go the direction that H.R. 2997 has, this AIRR Act.

My issues with the bill are purely on policy.

There are excellent people that have worked this issue for a number of years. They have the right motives and the right reasons for approaching this issue. But when it comes to national security, we also have a constitutional and moral requirement to support and defend our great Republic, and here is where some of that is put at risk. Let me enumerate a few of them for you.

Air traffic controllers and managers who work in air traffic control facilities across the country are routinely involved in operations that deal directly with the national security of the United States. How so? Well, most Americans, to include Members of Congress, are not even aware of this facet of their work.

For instance, prior to the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom-- this is a true story--an FAA supervisor placed a number of flight plans in front of an air traffic controller in Kansas City. Those flight plans were for B-2 Stealth bombers that were about to depart from Whiteman Air Force Base, fly across the Atlantic and drop their bombs in Afghanistan, opening the rounds of our response to 9/11, and then they would come back to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

Now, if you and I were sitting on the tarmac in the Kansas City airport and looking outside, we would say, ``Wow, what is the holdup?'' totally oblivious.

Yet this is important work. And their mission was obviously classified at that time, but it was FAA U.S. Government air traffic controllers--not private contractors, not private company citizens-- controllers and managers working these aircraft in U.S. airspace many hours prior to the start of the armed conflict.

Every time Air Force One takes off from Joint Base Andrews outside Washington, D.C., carrying very important people, to include the President of the United States, it is an FAA U.S. Government air traffic controller clearing that aircraft for takeoff. Not just clearing it, then it is an FAA U.S. Government air traffic controller and manager who ensure the security of the airspace flown by the world's most famous symbol of freedom, the shiny

blue and white Boeing 747 used by Air Force One and Two as a secure way to transport our President, our Vice President, other officials, as they are called and closely monitored by the FAA and other air traffic controllers and managers anytime Air Force One or Marine One aircraft are airborne.

These are operations that go unseen. Many of them and the aspects of them are obviously classified and we could never go into here. But they are vital to our security. They should not be put in a private corporation's hands where there is no oversight and no control.

The FAA air traffic controllers and managers routinely provide airspace security, sometimes for hours on end, at locations across the country as the FBI or State and local law enforcement perform classified missions using government aircraft. In some cases, not even other aircraft know about those missions or what it is that they are conducting, depending upon the sensitivity of what it is that they are doing or is being performed.

U.S. air traffic controllers, government employees, and managers also participate in drug interdiction operations with the Drug Enforcement Administration as well as Customs and Border Protection. This might involve providing intercept vectors due to drug aircraft, drug lords trying to sneak things in or whatever it might be, and that has to alter flight plans and do very complicated things.

It might also involve protecting the airspace for drone operations. Many people are unaware that the FAA U.S. Government-Employed air traffic controllers and managers are also responsible for military flights, not just the kind that I described at our bases and airports, but this includes special-use airspace that maybe has been delegated to the United States in other countries, or to do flight training, refueling, attack and bombing missions. And these same government- employed air traffic controllers and managers are responsible for military aircraft on secret missions, to include drones and drone killers.

They are responsible for the aircraft of military uses to communicate with our nuclear infrastructure so that if we have to, God forbid, defend the Republic in that manner, they are right there in that loop of that system, not some private company.

They are also responsible for the airspace above the areas where our missile defense capacities occur and the testing systems that go on with that. You can see why handing these coordinations over to a private company might be a little problematic.

And then let's look at September 11, 2001. It was FAA U.S. Government air traffic controllers and managers who were responsible for putting over 4,000 aircraft on the ground almost immediately, in very short order, after America was attacked by terrorists using planes as weapons, killing 3,000 of our fellow citizens. But it was the rapidity of response because of the way the network is that they were able to make instant decisions, not having to coordinate through some private corporation, that they were able to do so. And I will speak more about that.

The airspace above this very Capitol and above the White House, the Supreme Court, and all the monuments that you have enjoyed as you have come to Washington, D.C., or as you work here, the symbols of our Republic, are closely watched over by the FAA, and they are air traffic controllers and managers who have sworn an oath, unlike people in private companies. They don't swear oaths. Employees of private corporations do not take oaths, nor do they promise to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Privatizing the U.S. air traffic control system will not enhance our country's national security.

Unfortunately, the national security role that FAA controllers and managers perform every day is not well known, even among Members here. But one could list a number of functions that our government performs where we do have a vested interest, the people, in saying we give this authority, we the people, to the government because we can't do this as individuals. The Federal Government does have a role.

So is it about modernization or is it about privatization? We are all in agreement on modernization, but privatization, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of us are like a pack of dogs lapping up antifreeze. It smells good, it might even taste good, but it is not without drastic consequence.

Just this week, we narrowly missed having to vote on this bill in its current form next week. This is why I am bringing these points out, so that we do not make this grave mistake that will breach our national security. Well-meaning people, friends, colleagues, people with just as much passion as I may have, but yet we the people have to take a step back and protect our national security.

There are also, in H.R. 2997, no provisions to prohibit in this private corporation foreign nationals working in it. Today, if you are going to be an air traffic controller, you have to be a United States citizen. You have to take an oath of office. Under a private corporation or whom they subcontract with for air traffic control, this bill, were it to become law--and it cannot, we must prevent it--what would happen is there are no prohibitions in that law against foreign nationals guiding your skies or taking an oath of office where they are as committed to our Republic, Mr. Speaker, as any of us with the oaths that we have to take.

The national security concerns are paramount. Until we address them, we should not rush in. We want modernization.

I applaud the President of the United States for wanting to bring this issue to the light of the public. We need modernization. We agree with that. In fact, just knowing that we have his support to move towards a modernized plan gives us great comfort because we need that backing from the Executive.

But we have to address these national security issues, and right now, this bill does not do that. Even if it did address all of these, there is still a question that remains: Has the government demonstrated that it cannot control the skies and that the FAA's air traffic control system and its controllers are incapable of keeping us safe?

I can see if it is something that is broken and we have to intervene as government and make sure it is more efficient and we have to do the right thing, but in this case, where is all of this brokenness that we are hearing about? Sure, archaic equipment--been there and done that serving in the military. As you heard Chairman Thornberry say today, half of the Air Force's aircraft would qualify for antique license if they were civilian aircraft and registered in Virginia.

As a soldier, I live by the motto, ``I will fight with what I have, and I will win where I fight.'' Whether it is with flintlocks, hatchets, modern rifles, or modern technology, poor is the workman who blames his tools. And our FAA air traffic controllers do a marvelous job with the systems they have.

That is why almost a decade ago we worked towards the next-generation system to modernize, and it is on track with procured funding like NASA has because it is expensive stuff and it takes time. You don't want that subject to funding problems.

The FAA, as a whole, has those funding problems. You have a continuing resolution or a government shutdown like in 2013, wow, that creates ripples. But if it is about modernization of our control towers, it is on track for the pilots that we might have.

And I know, Mr. Speaker, you have put yourself at the wheel of planes, and in this case there are a lot of things that we can see where the FAA does a marvelous job. It doesn't mean that we have to privatize it.

On 9/11, over 4,000 planes were grounded immediately and safely. What a lot of Americans don't know, Mr. Speaker, is that the FAA's national operations manager who made that unprecedented gutsy call, he was a government employee, you know, one of those bloated government employees we have got to fire and move out. His name was Ben Sliney. And guess what? That was his first day on the job as the FAA's national operations manager. Wow, what a first day.

But he was good. He had taken an oath to the Republic. He made a gutsy call; 4,000 planes put on the ground, and it helped keep our Republic safer, because it could have been worse.

The FAA has clearly demonstrated through its air traffic control system that it can handle the job. When was the last time we can remember a fatal

accident with a major carrier? 2009, and that was a regional carrier.

But also in 2009 there was something else that happened. On the 15th of January, 1 month before the fatal accident in February in Buffalo, New York, with the regional carrier, which was the last time we had a major fatal accident, that was US Air Flight 1549, piloted by Captain Chesley Sullenberger and copiloted by Jeff Skiles.

So what we have seen and what we all know is that the heroism of those two pilots that day put the plane down in the Hudson, saving all onboard. And we saw air traffic controllers doing everything with an emergency at one of the busiest airports, providing so many options.

Well, Mr. Sullenberger, like so many of us, has grave concerns with H.R. 2997. This is not a man that has any government interest or privatization this or that or is up here lobbying or doing anything, yet he is somebody America trusts.

You might be interested in some of his comments, and I am quoting Captain Sully here.

He says: ``My real issue, and I think for many people, is that we have a wonderful and unique freedom in this country, this unfettered, wonderful aviation system that anyone can participate in safely and efficiently. In most countries, it's either too restrictive or too expensive for an average person to fly, and the only way you can go is on an airliner or military flight,'' meaning other nations. ``It's just prohibitively restrictive or expensive to do it any other way. That's something that we need to protect and preserve, and so why in the world would we give the keys of the kingdom to the largest airlines?''--under this H.R. 2997 he is referring to. ``Because they definitely have their own agenda to lower their costs. Commercial aviation, airline aviation, has become an extraordinarily cost-competitive industry globally, and it becomes more so day by day.''

``By removing oversight of the air traffic control system from the FAA and much of the oversight that Congress currently has,'' Mr. Sullenberger goes on to state, ``and giving it to a group of people, stakeholders basically controlled by the largest airlines, to control access to and pricing of access to the air traffic control system. That is an extreme solution to what's really a political budget problem.''

Captain Sully goes on to say, ``It means bad things for everyone who flies, but especially for people who fly in non-airline ways,'' meaning general aviation.

``That is a big part of the system,'' he says. To continue his quote: ``I am worried about access. I am worried about equitability. I am worried about safety.'' Okay, to pause in his quotations here, Captain Sully was the guy on safety. He would go around and this was his job in the airlines. No man was better when it came to safety standards. And then he demonstrated it that day, that he knew what he was talking about.

For him to make these kinds of comments, I think we need to take pause, and take a step back, and listen. To continue his quote: ``There are other, better ways to solve this political budget problem--by giving the FAA, in running the air traffic control system and making capital improvements to the air traffic control system, more predictable multiyear funding--without giving away the keys to the kingdom to the largest airlines to control access and fees and pricing too.''

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Captain Sully. I think he knows something about it. Modernization. That is an area we can all agree on. American aviation would suffer terribly without the benefit of the public structure of the air traffic control system, including its accountability to Congress, and the FAA.

Establishing a private air traffic control company, corporation, board, outside the purview of Congress, with the unilateral power to collect fees without controls from the government, and distribute service, would threaten our national security--as I have spoken to already--accessibility and affordability of flights, not maybe immediately in the transition, but, as you read H.R. 2997, it goes on to say that they can do a lot of things in a couple of years.

Pilot generation. Look at general aviation in the examples that they use for comparisons. Many of the proponents of this bill say: Look at Canada. Look at Europe.

I love the Canadian people. I have traveled through most of Europe. I even lived in Germany as an exchange student.

Yes, in Germany today, a pilot can go from 35,000 feet in Lufthansa or an airliner, and he can glide all the way down to Tempelhof Airport in Berlin. Why? Because he doesn't have Steve Russell, Mr. Speaker, out there in his Cessna 140 in the way. Guess what? In the United States, I have as much right to airspace as a U.S. citizen flying as that Lufthansa pilot, who is, by the way, just coming here to deliver passengers, or any other airline pilot.

That is the beauty of our system. What you won't find in Germany is general aviation. You won't find access. And as Captain Sully correctly stated, it is a wonderful thing. We have access to that. It is one of our hallmark freedoms in the United States.

Now, when he says that we will be handing over the keys to the kingdom, what he means is that it goes to this private corporation, this board, and then they will, for commercial interests, set up--what does that board look like? Well, here it is, right out of the bill.

It will have six of its board members who will be on the commercial side of aviation. Now, I have nothing against commercial aviation. American Airlines, love them, they brought me home from three wars. I will always have those memories.

Regional carriers probably brought many folks listening to this today. But they have commercial interests, as Captain Sully correctly stated. They will be concerned about those issues. That's fine. They run businesses. They don't have to protect our national security. They fly.

And so what we see with this board is six of them in the commercial side--commercial, regional jets. And then you have got one general aviation, and then one on the business side, which could support general aviation or not. But that clearly, as you lay out the board, two that will be appointed by the Secretary of Transportation--kind of his only say in a lot of this process--and then two that will be appointed by the board itself.

So what you will have is a two-thirds lopsided board that will favor the commercial interests rather than aviation as a whole. This is why Captain Sullenberger, and so many others, have had grave concerns about what it does to our freedoms for flying.

Now, much of my protest against this bill will have been because of the national security pieces. We could lay all of this other stuff aside. We have to solve these national security pieces in the bill, and right now, they are not there.

With modernization, we can get to some of that, but we have the safest airspace in the world. Where is this broken, archaic system that we hear people saying? Canada, love the Canadians. I have driven the Alcan twice. I have been through so much of the country, driven 1,200, 1,300 miles on a dirt road in Canada, a wonderful place. I have lectured in many of their cities in a former life.

But Canada has the population of Texas, and if you were to look at the number of flights it handles each day, probably less flights than Texas. Yes, they have a modern system. We are having a modern system with NextGen. What we need to do is solve the acquisition pieces, the modernization pieces--not the privatization pieces.

Why? We all know that much of North America's security is secured by the United States of America. They don't have to face the same things. That is why they can get away with such a small military. It is not an indictment. It is just the truth.

The bill in question, H.R. 2997, strips oversight authority of our national airspace from the President, the Congress, and gives it to this unelected board of individuals, an action that would threaten the United States' ability to maintain the integrity of our airspace, as I spoke to earlier, Mr. Speaker, on what goes on at altitudes and in missions that most of us really have no clue.

It puts at risk thousands of missions that our military conducts in just

training and safety in our skies every day. It gives private contractors access to classified data.

Let's go back to what we were talking about with Edward Snowden with the leaks that we are seeing out of the intelligence services these days. Where is that coming from? It is coming from the private contractors. It goes lateral.

Do you think it is going to be any different because we here in Congress say: Oh, no, no, no? Hey, it is going to be great. This is going to be--rest assured, and I can already predict what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker. The disasters will strike. We will sit in Oversight and Government Reform with bony fingers and red faces going: How did you let this happen? And all we have to do is look in the mirror, because we are much like dogs lapping up antifreeze, to lick up something that smells good, tastes good, with drastic consequences.

If we want to maintain the safest and best airspace in the world, we have to prevent the passage of H.R. 2997. Now, this is hard for me to do. Why? Because I don't like opposing my own party. I don't like opposing my friends. I have done some terrible things in my life as a soldier. I don't like conflict anymore. I try to stay as far away from that as I can, and there are two veterans over here giving me thumbs up--combat veterans themselves.

But I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am not saying if you support this bill you are unconstitutional, or that you don't love your country, or that you don't want to protect the Republic. I am not suggesting that at all. I have too many friends who have a counterview to mine. But it is my responsibility to expose what is in this bill and why it is dangerous, and why we can't do it.

Mr. Speaker, we need to call on the American public and have them contact their Members of Congress and tell them to oppose H.R. 2997, to not let privatization of our air traffic control system happen; to keep it into the role that, like Abraham Lincoln said, sometimes things that we can't do ourselves, we need to do collectively, and the government has a role in that. Mr. Lincoln obviously knew what he was talking about.

Modernization, we can all agree on that. Let's work on that. I applaud the President for bringing this issue to the fore. We need to deliver that win for him.

But breaching national security of our airspace and risking our safety on an unproven system is not a win. Mr. Speaker, it is not something that we need to support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher).

Career and Technical Education

Mr. Speaker, Solomon, who was often noted as the wisest man in the world, said: ``A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.''

If you were to ask the average American citizen would they like their elected officials to come to Washington and to work together, they would all say: Of course. They should. That is what we elect them for.

Yet, often in our history, we see emotions override the mouth and we raise our voices, distrust builds, isolation results, we don't get to know each other, we don't get to work with one another. As we isolate, then a distrust builds, and with distrust, then we don't want to hear what either side has to say. Ultimately, when we can no longer exchange ideas with a deliberateness, then we fall short.

Solomon also said in Ecclesiastes: ``Two are better than one, for they have a good reward for their labor, for if the one fall, the other will lift up,'' and ``A three-fold cord is not quickly broken.''

As we look at our mottoes and our institutions, we have a phrase: ``Out of many, one.''

That phrase is not: Out of one idea, let's create many.

It is just the opposite.

One thing that I learned in my time as a soldier in negotiating and dealing with people groups that literally could not agree, to the point that they were shelling and killing each other and each other's women and children in their villages as they burned, that even in situations like that, they could find some overlapping circles and some common ground in between.

The events of the past week are a reminder not just to Members of Congress, who oftentimes we do know each other, we do work with one another, we do serve on committees with one another. We take great pride in developing those relationships despite our differences, but we have an obligation, because, as a constitutional representative republic, we are a reflection of the people that send us here.

It is important that the lawmakers that the American people send to Washington to do that work be those that are willing to accommodate, that are willing to assimilate the things that we agree on, because if we can't accommodate and we can't assimilate--as I have viewed in war- torn battlefields in several different places through a career as an infantry soldier, if you can no longer accommodate or be willing to assimilate certain agreed ideas, then you are left with the third choice, which is elimination.

The United States has never had that as its pretext. We got close once in a period from about 1820 to 1860. We have faced tough times before and come together. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that not just our body, as we take and deem these responsibilities with a lot of conviction, but that the American people would take their responsibility to be mindful of the words of Solomon: ``A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.''

Our country is bigger than any of us. When we leave it, God willing, it will continue on. And the words that are said in this Chamber, although recorded, few read. As time passes and as we govern our lives and go about our business, we have to remember the very principles that brought us together as a nation and that I nearly gave my life for in defense.

So my hope is, as we move in the coming days and weeks, that we will work on the things where the circles overlap and we will not negotiate the nonnegotiables. If we just focus on those things, we will have more than enough work to do to actually get stuff done.

As a message to the American people: accommodate, listen, dialogue, be kind, and be patient. I have seen the worst thing that human beings can do to one another in my lifetime. I have watched friends die on a battlefield. I have had to take human life. I have seen horrible and horrific things that no human being should ever do. But we are not in that place. We live in freedom. We live in great enjoyment of prosperity where our ideas, our work--the sweat of our brow--can go, and we can put it to good use with great liberty. We have to tone it down.

We have to be willing to put others before ourselves and to listen. I pledge to do that as a Member, one of 435 here. I hope the American people will pledge to be as committed to the United States as we all must be if we are to secure the future for our children and grandchildren.

One of the things that we often all agree on is efficiency in government--to turn the tone and the topic of the conversation a little bit in a different direction. Efficiency in government--nothing makes us more sad and disappointed than to see hard-earned tax dollars wasted by inefficiency.

In my home State of Oklahoma, for every million dollars the government wastes, we have to have 96 Oklahomans work all year long to pay all of their taxes so that we can waste it. I have often highlighted these wasteful measures in a series called ``Waste Watch.'' We just released ``Waste Watch'' number 7 where we, sadly, highlight over $50 billion worth of waste in just one item and a total of $70 billion worth of waste on a single topic. That is something that we all care about and that we all want to pay with our taxes. That is education.

For years, Americans have been paying more and getting less from our educational system. Over the past decade, national high school student proficiency test scores in math have consistently met the minimum or were below. Reading scores for high school students, over the past 20 years, have been consistently substandard with a continued downward trend.

As test scores remain low, available funding for education is often wasted. The solution is not simply to spend more on education without correcting the habits where the waste can occur. We need to spend our dollars wisely by eliminating educational waste, as well as many other forms of waste in government, and push those dollars where they actually count--to our teachers and to our classrooms.

Additionally, we have to change the perception that more money spent always equals a better outcome. If that were the case, we would be the most efficient government on the planet.

It is my hope to create motivation to protect taxpayers and assist in educating America's children with the resources available. It is not enough to point out the problems. That is easy. Anyone can be a cynic and a critic. But we must work together to fix them so that we can make our Nation stronger. Education is vital to our children and to our future.

What are some of these things that we are talking about? Well, how about this one: researchers at the esteemed Harvard University spent $3 million to study if people were able to smell an unpleasant odor in their urine after eating asparagus, also known as asparagus pee, according to the research. The research was funded through a research grant from the National Institutes of Health with your tax dollars.

The NIH uses Federal tax dollars to fund its research and received $30 billion in 2016. The NIH's mission statement is ``to enhance health, extend healthy lives, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.''

We would all agree with that. It is good to try to fix problems with disease, fight the common cold, cure cancer, and cure Alzheimer's, all of those things.

However, the NIH has conducted lifesaving research in the past and has been given broad authority in deciding

how to spend that $30 billion, and now we see waste.

The NIH funds research grants to universities, and much of the NIH's funding is well justified and leads to lifesaving research. Funding a study that doesn't even explore the possible health benefits of eating asparagus but only if there is an odor after eating it does not fit into any mission of the NIH. It is akin to the taxpayers' money being flushed down the toilet.

This particular study was the result of a grant provided by the NIH to Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Its purpose was to discover whether people could smell an asparagus effect. The researchers at Harvard received more than $3 million in 2016, to survey 6,909 people of European-American descent to find if these people's urine smelled funny after eating asparagus, and the results were published in the British Medical Journal.

The results concluded that a ``large proportion of individuals of European-American descent cannot smell'' any effect. Sixty percent of the people surveyed, 58 percent of men and 62 percent of women, stated that they could not smell any urinary metabolites produced after asparagus consumption. However, Angus Chen, a reporter for the National Public Radio, stated in his report on this study that 4,161 people ``were confused by the question.'' Do you think? We didn't need to waste $3 million or have 260 Oklahomans work all year long to see if there was some effect in this madness.

Mr. Speaker, do you want to waste $2 billion? Then give it to the Veterans Administration. In 2008, Congress passed the post-9/11 GI Bill updating the GI Bill from 1944, creating new benefits for servicemembers like myself, such as lengthening the expiration date following separation from the Armed Forces or retirement and offering living expenses as well as tuition. Another change made the benefits paid directly to the school of choice for the veteran--and here is where it began to go awry.

Initially, benefits from the GI Bill were paid directly to the servicemember for them to decide how and where to invest in their own education. This makes sense. They were responsible enough to defend our Republic; they can probably handle the funds--as they had for decades before. This change now comes with a litany of problems.

An audit conducted from 2013 to 2014, by the Office of Inspector General, for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs found that a 13 percent error rate in payments by the Veterans Benefits Administration to the schools of choice for servicemembers had occurred.

To conduct this audit, the OIG looked into 650 payments for 225 students to 50 schools. They found $128,000 in improper payments; and eight students who withdrew from their classes still received $2,400 in stipends, and this money was never recovered for the taxpayer. Extrapolating these numbers to the full class of students, the Office of Inspector General estimated that, over 5 years, the Veterans Benefits Administration would process about $205 million in improper payments--and you see it continue to go on and waste $2.2 billion.

We can do better. We must do better. We must do better by our veterans. We must do better so that we do not allow people's insatiable appetite for nonexistent government funds to continue to be consumed. We are a nation that is $20 trillion in debt.

How many of you, if you came and I asked you: Hey, could I have $100?

And you said: sure.

And I said: okay, but great, it is going to cost you $105 because I am going to charge you $5 to take your hundred.

Wouldn't that be pretty much absurd and in your face? Yet that is exactly what we do with a very popular program called the Pell Grant Program. The Pell grant was created in the 1970s and has since become the basic mechanism for the Federal Government to assist lower income families with higher education costs. The legislation mandates that students receiving the funds must be admitted and enrolled in an institution of higher learning. Fine.

While the Pell grant provides great opportunity for students who might not otherwise be able to attend college--something that we all think is good--the waste comes from a stipulation within the law that requires the Federal Government to pay a fee to give away their money. The $5 payment goes directly to participating schools and is intended to help offset the cost of the Pell grant. So we let institutions of higher learning charge a fee to accept your money, the taxpayers.

While it is true that there are administrative costs involved with servicing Pell grants, schools should accept these costs as a part of doing business as they would if no Pell grant were provided and it was just your hard-earned money. If you were supporting one of your children in college, those fees would be incorporated within that same $1,000.

For the 2015 and 2016 year, the maximum Pell grant available to an undergraduate student was roughly $5,775. Based on the latest reports from the U.S. Department of Education for the same year or the year prior, the Nation's taxpayers provided $30 billion to 8 million students. The average Pell grant received by students was roughly $3,800. That all sounds good. While $5 does not seem significant, when you put that $5 towards 8 million students, you can see where the problem is.

It is an unnecessary and arbitrary fee that should be disallowed, and we need to restore it so that colleges and institutions do not scoop something off of the top. But people say: well, we have our administrative costs. We have overhead. We have our infrastructure. We have all of these things that we have to do.

Yes, and that is why we have allowed, for decades, the tax-exempt endowments so that as the endowments accrue wealth and they grow, they use those resources to sustain the infrastructure on the university.

We are $20 trillion in debt. It would be great if we could not pay our bills to go to our next-door neighbor and say: Hey, I am a little short on my electric bill, can you help me?

Or: I need help on my house payment this month. Let me just get it from you.

Our neighbors would not take kindly to that. Yet we are allowing these institutions that have the endowed wealth and that have all of the ability to do the infrastructure. Yet what happens? They continue to waste money with administrative fees that only have increased by 300 percent since 1976.

Here is another one for you: How many of you would donate to a charity that had a 52 percent administrative overhead? No takers? I didn't think so. Yet that is exactly what you do when you have the National Science Foundation put forth research grants that were designed to help people in their health and fighting disease and many other things. The average fee that universities and institutions charge back to the Federal Government for these research grants is 52 percent. That borders on the immoral.

A practice in higher education grant making that is not widely known or understood by the American public is this practice of charging indirect cost as a part of a grant. So, for example, $1 million that is coming to a university for research--we are all excited about that, it helps our communities--did you know that that university, in turn, will scoop, on average, 52 percent off of the top?

The typical grant has direct costs, and we all understand that. As they put forth their budget, they will list it with such things as researchers' salaries--fine--travel associated with research-- understood. But beyond that, universities are able to claim, under our insane laws, that additional funds in the form of indirect costs are needed for infrastructure of the institution, and it is our responsibility, as taxpayers, to support that. Never mind that tax-free endowments were designed specifically for that purpose and already exist that they could use. But they never touch that wealth. They never touch that accrued wealth. They never touch that accrued interest.

The Office of Management and Budget defines indirect costs as expenses an organization incurs indirectly--and they get to define what that is. What does it translate to? Well, rather than pick on Harvard, let's pick on the Big 12, a region I come from. We will start with the University of Oklahoma.

Charging the government for indirect costs is expensive and, unfortunately, a

common practice among institutions of higher learning.

Here are the indirect costs for the schools in the Big 12. I am sure they are not the only ones. This is a nationwide epidemic, to the tune of $55 billion. That is billion with a B. Even in Washington, D.C., that is real money.

The University of Oklahoma adds a 55 percent surcharge to its research on campus; Oklahoma State University adds 45 percent, and a 54 percent surcharge for instruction grant projects.

The University of Texas, 56 percent. We have a winner.

Texas Tech, 49 percent; Texas Christian, 54 percent; Baylor, 38 percent. They are a little more economical, but it is still nearly 40 percent of waste.

The University of Kansas charges a surcharge of 51.5 percent; Kansas State, 52 percent; West Virginia, 50 percent; Iowa State, 52 percent, meeting the median average.

Higher education officials rarely talk about it. When confronted with it, they will, with straight faces and degrees of education, argue that this waste is absolutely essential for them to continue.

A recent George Washington University student newspaper article revealed a higher education official's thoughts about indirect costs when he overtly referred to them as--you have got it--subsidies. He let it slip. Maybe Freudian, we don't know.

The George Washington Hatchet quoted Leo Chalupa, vice president for research, that ``research is bringing in money to the university.''

You think? It is $55 billion worth.

However, Chalupa is not just referring to the direct dollars used to conduct research. We would all agree with needed research, but what we don't agree with is this indirect--more than half--plundering of what the dollars were designed and intended to do.

Let's switch to something that we should do to try to incentivize people to improve their educational experience. Sound confusing? It is--to the tune of $7 billion was wasted.

Few Americans will argue that the Nation's schools do not need improvement. We would all say that they do. When one looks at test scores or compares American outcomes with other nations, it is easy to see that many of our K-12 schools are languishing.

One recent report evaluated testing outcomes against other industrialized nations, and America's students finished 17th out of 34--not something to be proud of. This led President Obama to direct more money at the issue, like so many previous Presidents before him, rather than looking at the underlying systemic concerns.

It is not the amount of money; it is the habit that is being created. While increasing funding can be a component of a solution, it is often not the most vital of the components. Without proper policy driving the expenditures, the money spent can become one more example of how inefficient Federal intervention in anything can be.

President Obama's Department of Education directed $7 billion to a program known as the School Improvement Grants program, to which the Department of Energy named the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. The funds were directed to States with instructions that the funds should be directed to the poorest performing schools.

It sounds agreeable.

The measures used to identify the underperforming schools were graduation rates and readiness scores in reading and mathematics. Then- Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, in 2009: ``We could really move the needle, lift the bottom, and change the lives of tens of millions of underserved children''--something that all of us would agree on.

The School Improvement Grant program built on the race to the top efforts undertaken during the Bush administration, and the Obama administration efforts doubled the funds for the program.

The Department of Education described the purpose of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers in the following way: ``This program supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools.''

Again, all of these sound laudable. However, according to a report released by the Department of Energy just a few days before the end of President Obama's administration, test scores, graduation rates, and college enrollment were no different in schools that had received these funds from School Improvement Grants as those that did not--$7 billion gone.

A Washington Post article detailing the report quoted Andy Smarick, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: ``Think of what all that money could have been spent on instead.'' Mr. Smarick is correct: $7 billion in taxpayer funds were spent without any oversight or careful oversight whatsoever.

Congress must reexamine the role of the Federal Government in education because what is being done now does not work--billions upon billions of dollars.

How about if we can't solve it through $7 billion wasted in trying to make people feel good about education and then that will improve their schools, how about we get them moving so we can fight obesity and cut down on diabetes, disease, and other things. That sounds good. Let's talk about that.

In 2010, with the assistance of First Lady Michelle Obama, the Let's Move! project began, with the hope of reducing childhood obesity in America. This is a real problem in Oklahoma. We have one of the largest obesity rates of all the States.

The program, costing as much as $1 billion per year, focused heavily on impressing upon children the need for proper exercise as well as bringing healthier food options into schools.

At first glance, it appears that the Let's Move! program produced results. In 2008, U.S. childhood obesity rates nationally were around 16.2 percent. During the next 3 years, 18 States saw those rates begin a modest decline, falling in some States by 5 percent.

This reduction could be attributed to the effectiveness of the program or a cultural change in how people view health choices and how they view their eating habits. But it should be noted, regardless, that this decline was already begun by the time the Let's Move! program was even enacted. Overall, and sadly, in the latest statistics, U.S. childhood obesity rates did not decline and, in fact, have risen to 17.2 percent in the last statistical year.

There are many, many things that we can continue to go on and talk about in waste. Let's end with this one.

Want people to eat healthy, something that sounds good? How many of you would be influenced by people dressing up like Fruit of the Loom, in outfits like green beans, grapes, tomatoes, and going to college campuses and then just seeing the sight of these people wearing these costumes say: You know, I think I need to eat some grapes or vegetables?

That is what this program did. It wasted $14.7 million of your money. It is called the Get Fruved project.

I am not making it up.

Not only did this program waste $14.7 million; it is still being funded by your tax dollars. The U.S. Department of Agriculture awarded $4.9 million a year for this initiative, led by students and researchers at four American universities, which are the University of Tennessee, South Dakota, West Virginia, and the University of Florida.

The Fruved website reports that its goal is:

Our students are the best teachers. This is why Fruved has

sophomores and juniors at each school peer-monitoring first-

year students, helping them live a healthier life during

their first year of college.

That includes dressing up in these outfits. That is $14.7 million.

There are things that the Federal Government has a responsibility for and there are things that it does not. Abraham Lincoln said it best in a paraphrase where he said: The things that we can do ourselves, the government ought not to interfere. The things that we cannot do collectively, the government might have a role.

We know the government may have a role in education, certainly, with education funding and helping our facilities and our institutions. However, we do not need to waste $70 billion. Imagine what that could do.

We will never change this idea if the American people do not demand of us to stop such madness and waste. When people come with straight faces and Ph.D.s and argue for dressing up in outfits, we have to push back on that and

say: $20 trillion in debt, a weakened military, roads and bridges that are falling down and an infrastructure that needs improvement, modernization in our skies for the Federal Aviation Administration.

There are so many areas that the government truly does have a function and role. We will never get to it with asparagus urine studies and dressing up as fruits and vegetables.

Mr. Speaker, my hope is that all of us as Americans can find those overlapping circles and fight this absolute absurdity of waste in government, be responsible with American tax dollars, and sustain our great Republic for the future of our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 194) to ensure the effective processing of mail by Federal agencies, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material in the Record on the bill under consideration.

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

I present today H.R. 194, the Federal Agency Mail Management Act of 2017. Approximately 2 years ago, President Obama signed into law the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014.

The law modernized and improved Federal recordkeeping statutes by codifying agency responsibilities that have been in practice for decades. Once the law was enacted, the General Services Administration, or GSA, identified technical provisions in the law that the agency interpreted as limiting its ability to regulate Federal agency mailroom operations.

The GSA has been responsible for the regulation and oversight of Federal agency mail management for many years. Congress did not intend for the 2014 law to change the mail management structure.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 194 provides clarification to ensure that the GSA is responsible for mailroom management oversight, and not the National Archives and Records Administration. Both GSA and the National Archives have worked with Congress to make the correction, and both entities support H.R. 194.

Mr. Speaker, an identical bill was passed by the House with unanimous voice vote near the end of last Congress. We hope that this legislation will be signed into law this Congress to correct the unintended consequences of a previous law.

This corrective measure has bipartisan support, and I appreciate having my friend and colleague, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, join me as a cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 195) to amend title 44, United States Code, to restrict the distribution of free printed copies of the Federal Register to Members of Congress and other officers and employees of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material in the Record on the bill under consideration.

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

My bill, H.R. 195, the Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017, will save taxpayers dollars while providing needed reform in how we conduct day-to-day business in Congress.

The Federal Register contains a large amount of information, including proposed rules and public notices, regulations, executive orders, and Presidential documents. This information is compiled by the National Archives and published daily by the Government Publishing Office, or the GPO. Often described by the National Archives as ``the daily newspaper of the Federal Government,'' this service enables Members, staffs, and agencies to keep track of activity across government.

In 1994, the GPO began publishing the Federal Register online. To improve user experience, the digital version has been enhanced over time to provide navigational aids that include links to related content.

The Federal Register is now fully searchable and downloadable, making for quick access to any document. But sadly, Mr. Speaker, despite the advance of technology, Members of Congress and Federal offices across the entire government still receive printed copies of the Federal Register every day.

In the course of a year, this stack of Registers would be 16-feet high. This results in thousands of copies going directly into the trash each week, unless occasionally used as doorstops. Subscriptions to the Federal Register cost about $1,000 annually, meaning hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars are wasted each year. This same money could pay for the salaries of 50 soldiers who defend our Republic in a given year.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 195 makes a small but significant change to fix the problem and ensure that we operate in the 21st century. Instead of automatically receiving printed copies, Members or offices of the Federal Government who want to continue to receive copies need only submit a request. There will be an opt-in, instead of an opt-out.

Current print and on-demand technologies make this possible. The subscriptions will last for 1 year to ensure Members and offices are able to evaluate if they want to continue the service. For Members in offices that do not use or want the printed version, they will not receive it and will still have full access to the searchable digital version which most Members use.

This change will reduce unnecessary printing and, in context, will prevent 96 Americans from having to work each year so that we can throw Registers in the trash.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this efficient bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 653) to amend title 5, United States Code, to protect unpaid interns in the Federal Government from workplace harassment and discrimination, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material in the Record on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 653, the Federal Intern Protection Act of 2017, sponsored by my colleague from the Oversight Committee, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is well served by interns who provide invaluable assistance to agencies across the Federal Government. Our interns work alongside us and other Federal employees helping conduct agency business on behalf of the American people.

Internship programs also help to identify and develop the next generation of Federal employees. In exchange, interns gain invaluable work experience in a field that they might hope to enter upon graduation and credit they can apply at their institution of learning.

Unfortunately, there are no existing provisions in Federal law that protect interns working at Federal agencies against harassment or discrimination.

In the case of O'Connor v. Davis, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a decision finding an intern could not bring sexual harassment claims under Federal law.

The court reasoned that since the intern was not a Federal employee, that person was not covered by existing law. It concluded that: ``It is for Congress, if it should choose to do so . . . to provide a remedy. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee heard testimony showing the damage this loophole can have at Federal agencies. In a 2015 hearing on Environmental Protection Agency mismanagement, witnesses described allegations of sexual harassment against interns. According to testimony, ``one former intern stated that because of this harassment, she changed her mind about not only about working for EPA but also for working in the Federal sector at all.''

This is simply unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Intern Protection Act of 2017 ensures that interns working for the Federal Government receive anti-discriminatory and anti-harassment protections. Specifically, the bill prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicapping condition for interns working at Federal agencies. These protections are already in place for Federal employees.

I thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Elijah Cummings, for his leadership and commitment in protecting interns who work for the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill. I thank Mr. Cummings for his hard work on this measure. I also thank the committee for their broad, bipartisan, unanimous support and hard work in bringing this practical measure. I urge adoption of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, exactly 100 years ago, on this very floor, the United States declared war on Imperial Germany and entered the First World War on the side of the Allies. The decisions that led to that monumental declaration forever changed America's destiny, economy, military, foreign policy, and culture.

Today also marks the beginning of our National Centennial remembrance of America's service in World War I for the sacrifices made by all Americans and for the more than one-quarter of a million American casualties, including over 100,000 dead, most of whom were lost in a mere 6-month period from May to November 1918.

By the war's end, my great-grandfather and his three brothers would all serve. My great-grandfather's brother, my great-uncle, Frank Chamberlain, was killed in action. This is his pipe that he was carrying when he was killed in France, his dog tags, and his uniform insignia that I was able to inherit from my great-grandfather.

He lays peacefully in France under a white marble military gravestone, a scant, faceless hint of the man who was once filled with laughter and humor, who held dreams, hopes, and goals for the future. Frank was 19 years old.

On April 6, 1917, our country was forever changed, and it began right here on this very floor. It is only fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we give remembrance to its beginning here today. I am indeed indebted to the fine work of Dr. Eric B. Setzekorn of the United States Army's Center of Military History for his material from ``Joining the Great War,'' which forms the basis for today's remembrance.

After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of

Austria on the 28th of June 1914, which led to the military

mobilization across Europe and declarations of war by early

August, most Americans took solace that the Atlantic Ocean

shielded the United States from the conflict. The Chicago

Herald summed up the popular support for isolation from

Europe's strife in its article that said: ``Peace-loving

citizens of this country will now rise up and tender a hearty

vote of thanks to Columbus for having discovered America.''

Germany's invasion of neutral Belgium brought Great Britain

into the war and divided Europe into two great camps. Britain

joined France and Russia to form the Triple Entente, more

commonly referred to as the Allied Powers. Opposed to them

were Germany and Austria-Hungary, making up the Central

Powers.

President Woodrow Wilson believed that the immoral nature

of European politics created entangling alliances that

transformed a regional conflict into a global war that

threatened world peace. The President delivered a Declaration

of Neutrality to this very Congress on the 19th of August

1914, calling on all citizens to remain ``impartial in

thought, as well as in action.'' However, between late 1914

and early 1917, the escalating conflict tested American

traditions of isolationism as it threatened to draw the

Nation closer to the war.

The initial German offensive against France ended in

September at the Battle of the Marne, after which both sides

attempted a series of flanking maneuvers to gain the

advantage. Neither side proved capable of overcoming the

killing power that machine guns and rapid-firing artillery

brought to the defensive, and the battle lines all along the

Western Front stabilized in a vast system of trenches

stretching from Switzerland all the way to the English

Channel. This was a new type of warfare, with soldiers

subjected to prolonged stress and danger, with little chance

for daring heroics or martial glory.

Behind the trenches, the development of sophisticated

supply systems that were able to support millions of men and

massive levels of firepower and the ability to rush reserves

to block any potential enemy breakthrough led to a vicious

stalemate.

On the broad expanses of the Eastern Front, Germany and

Austria were locked in a brutal war of attrition with Russia,

where logistics and artillery shells counted far more than

bravery.

To break through the deadlock, the combatants attempted to

smash through enemy

lines with ever larger offensives. Attacks in 1915 saw tens

of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of artillery pieces

deployed along only a few miles of the front, trying to win

through sheer weight of numbers and ordnance. The result was

thousands of dead and gains measured in yards after weeks of

constant fighting.

Poison gas, first used by the Germans in April 1915 and

later adopted by every nation, added to the daily misery and

danger. By 1916, as the industrial economies of Germany,

France, and Britain became fully geared toward war

production, battles increased in scale and destructiveness.

In the fight of the fortress of Verdun between February and

December, the French and Germans suffered more than 1 million

casualties combined.

On the first day of the Somme Offensive on the 1st of July

1916, the British and French fired more than 2 million

artillery shells into the German lines in support of 19

divisions attacking along only a 20-mile front. Despite this

colossal weight of numbers, the British alone suffered 57,000

casualties on the very first day and did not break the German

defenses. By the time the Somme ended in mid-November, all

sides had suffered more than a combined 1 million casualties,

while the front moved fewer than 10 miles. As a result,

Verdun and the Somme became synonymous with the slaughter and

destruction that defined the Western Front.

As the stalemate in France continued, U.S. political and

public opinion began to shift from neutrality toward support

for the Allies. German atrocities in Belgium, at times

exaggerated by Allied propaganda, shocked many Americans.

Additionally, in early 1915, the Germans began an effort to

isolate the British Isles by using submarines, known as

Unterseeboote, or U-boats, to attack British merchant

shipping.

The German campaign, which consisted of the unrestricted

sinking of any merchant vessel bound for Britain, was

portrayed by American newspapers as a cowardly and immoral

method of warfare.

On the 1st of May 1915, a German U-boat sank the British

liner RMS Lusitania, killing 1,198 men, women, and children,

including 128 American citizens onboard. After the attack,

The New York Times called on President Wilson to ``demand

that the Germans shall no longer make war like savages drunk

with blood.''

Fearing that such action could pull the United States into

the war, and concerned over British violations of American

shipping rights, President Wilson continued his policy of

neutrality. Seeking to take the moral high road, he

proclaimed: ``There is such a thing as a man being too proud

to fight . . . There is such a thing as a Nation being so

right that it does not need to convince others by force that

it is right.''

However, after the Germans sank the French passenger ferry

SS Sussex in March 1916, Wilson threatened to break off

diplomatic relations with Germany. In May, the Germans

pledged to abandon unrestricted submarine warfare, though

they reserved the right to attack legitimate targets such as

armed merchant ships or those vessels carrying war materiel.

As Germany's submarine campaign damaged its relations with

the United States, America's economic relationship with

Britain and France expanded. Faced with a war of attrition,

the Allies relied on agricultural and industrial resources to

support their war efforts.

Despite a British blockade that severely cut American

commerce and its friendly relations to the former central

powers, U.S. trade with Europe more than doubled from 1913 to

1917. U.S. companies not only provided civilian goods, but

also war materiel. Bethlehem Steel alone supplied the Allies

with over 20 million artillery shells between 1914 and 1918,

while major weapons manufacturers like Remington and

Winchester sold rifles and guns. Allied governments relied

heavily on the U.S. banking industry for billions in loans to

finance their war.

Despite the United States' growing economic ties to the

Allies, the American public still preferred that the Nation

remain neutral. The British Government's brutal suppression

of the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland angered many Americans--

and certainly, Irish Americans--as did its continued

violation of American neutral shipping rights through its

blockade of Germany.

As the casualty list grew during 1916, most Americans were

thankful that they had not been drawn into the carnage

engulfing Europe.

In November 1916, President Wilson won reelection by a

narrow margin, largely on the slogan, ``He kept us out of

war.'' However, circumstances changed rapidly in early 1917.

Many Americans began to volunteer for the French, great

Britain or Canada, like my Uncle Frank.

Germany's increasingly desperate strategic situation led to

a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare on the 31st of

January 1917. This action broke the earlier pledge of the

Germans to respect passenger shipping and convinced President

Wilson to break diplomatic relations with Germany on the 3rd

of February 1917.

Soon after, the British Government provided Wilson an

intercepted communication from the German foreign secretary,

Arthur Zimmermann, to the German envoy in Mexico. In the

telegram, Zimmermann proposed that if the United States

joined the war on the Allied side, Germany and Mexico should

enter into an alliance. In return, Mexico, by taking up arms

against the United States, would receive from Germany

supplies, financial assistance. Once a victory was achieved,

Mexico could claim territory in Texas, New Mexico, and

Arizona.

The State Department released the telegram to the

Associated Press on the 28th of February, and the American

public opinion turned sharply, as many became convinced of

German duplicity and aggressive intentions. No longer was the

war seen as simply a horrific folly by the European powers,

but rather as a clear indication of the danger of unchecked

militarism.

With the abdication of the Russian czar in February 1917

and the rise of a provisional representative government,

Americans came to see the war as a struggle that pitted

democracies against aggressive, authoritarian imperialists.

Faced with this clear contrast, President Wilson addressed

this very floor on April 2, 1917, in a joint session of

Congress declaring his desire that: We shall fight for the

things which we have always carried nearest our hearts--for

democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to

have a voice in their governments, for the rights and

liberties of small nations, for universal dominion of right

by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and

safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.

On the 6th of April--100 years ago today, where I am

standing--with concrete evidence of German hostility to the

United States, to international peace, and to liberal

democracy, Congress of the United States declared war on

Germany.

The first act of war committed on Germany was executed that very day, when the United States Army's 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry marched from Fort Jay, New York, to Hoboken, New Jersey, boarded and seized the German ships in the harbor and interned the German crews. I had the privilege to command the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry in Iraq in 2003- 2004.

Among the ships seized that day on April 6, 1917, was the SS Vaterland, a luxury liner later renamed the USS Leviathan. This luxury transport would send 10 percent of all doughboys to France and bring a great many of them home as well.

The last American World War I veteran was Frank Buckles, who enlisted from Oakwood, Oklahoma, in August of 1917. He died only 6 years ago, in February 2011, at age 110.

I had the privilege to know a great many World War I veterans. The last time I saw my great-grandfather was when I came home on leave as a young Army captain. As we had a very pleasant visit and it came to a close and I had to go, he told me: ``Don't go yet. I want to give you something.''

He returned from his bedroom with some items in a cigar box that I remember looking at as a kid. He said: ``I want you to have these.''

I said: ``I can't take these, grandpa. Those were your brother's.''

He said: ``You will take them because I know you will keep Frank's memory alive.''

He was right. They have been displayed by me ever since, wherever I have been.

As we reflect today on the declaration of war 100 years ago on this very spot in 1917 that began the United States entry into World War I, let us embark on a national centennial remembrance for all Americans of that day who sacrificed so much for our Republic. They are all gone now, but as long as we who knew them have breath and remember them, they will live.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is official: the Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas. Beginning in 2020, they will play in a shiny, new 65,000-seat stadium outfitted with a retractable roof that is expected to cost $1.9 billion.

If you are an American taxpayer, you will help pay for it, even if you live nowhere near Nevada. About $750 million for the project will be financed through municipal bonds, which are tax exempt. The Federal tax break is projected to amount to some $120 million, according to a study by the Brookings Institution.

Congress and President Trump should take the Raiders' bad example as an impetus for reform. As the President considers a $1 trillion plan to restore America's aging roads, rail, bridges, waterways, and airports, lawmakers should ask why so many stadiums are following the Las Vegas model, fleeing one bad economic State and using your tax dollars to go to another.

The alternative is what we did in Oklahoma City in 1993. Our residents passed a temporary 1 percent increase in sales tax to fund, without incurring a debt, a building spree called the Metropolitan Area Projects, or MAPS. Over 5 years, the plan raised $350 million for nine projects, including a stadium now called the Chesapeake Energy Arena, home to NBA basketball's Oklahoma City Thunder. This pay-as-you-go approach may sound unremarkable, but it is nothing short of exceptional.

Most professional sports stadiums these days are financed with municipal bonds, something that they were never intended to be used for. But this kind of debt wasn't intended for lavish football stadiums or basketball arenas. Municipal bonds were supposed to give communities a way to build public projects--hospitals, schools, roads--without having to pay Federal taxes on the debt's interest. The point was to ease the financial burden on cities and States that invest in expensive but essential infrastructure.

Over the past 30 years, however, stadium financiers have exploited a loophole in the Tax Code to qualify professional sports arenas for municipal bonds. Because Federal taxes aren't incurred on the interest of this debt, stadiums essentially receive a multimillion-dollar subsidy from Washington.

Last year, a Brookings study examined 45 stadiums built or seriously renovated since 2000; 36 were funded at least in part with municipal bonds, resulting in forgone Federal tax revenue of $3.7 billion. That is enough money to employ 88,000 military staff sergeants or give each State a $74 million block grant, or it could help reduce the national debt.

To solve this problem, I have introduced, along with my Democratic colleague, Earl Blumenauer from Oregon, H.R. 811. This bipartisan No Tax Subsidies for Stadiums Act would prohibit arena financiers from using municipal bonds. Instead of building enormous, lavish sports facilities on the backs of unsuspecting taxpayers across the Nation, financiers should ask communities to buy into their vision. If residents want a stadium to be built, fine. They should be willing to pay for it like we did in Oklahoma City; or sports franchises and leagues always have the option to finance construction like most businesses do, privately.

Funding an upgrade to America's core infrastructure will be a challenge. It shouldn't require Congress to use budget gimmicks or run up the national debt.

Closing loopholes, such as requiring stadium financiers to pay Federal taxes on bond interest that was intended to improve our decaying infrastructure, would ensure taxpayers get the best return on their dollars to improve public infrastructure that all Americans use.

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

Mr. Speaker, due to travel delays caused by Winter Storm Stella, I was unable to attend votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 159, YEA on Roll Call No. 160, and YEA on Roll Call No. 161

Madam Speaker, the carving up and commercial sale of dismembered unborn children ranks as one of the most horrific and barbaric acts in American and human history.

As an adoptive father, I speak today on behalf of the 55 million Americans that have had their lives brutally ended with the scalpel, the suction hose, and the callousness of the murderous culture that allows it to perpetuate.

These Americans had a right to choose life that they did not want to lose. We have the ability to restore to future Americans that choice. Until that day, no American should be forced to end the life of an innocent human being with their tax dollars.

We can carve up a child and call it a choice. We can destroy human life and call it health care. We can make the killing of children legal and pretend it is beneficial. We can cover acts of barbarity with the veneer of civility. But we cannot escape our accountability before the Creator of life.

Mr. Speaker, what is it that objectors are truly afraid of? We hear the words ``civilian control of the military'' as if somehow those American citizens who have borne the brunt of service or battle are somehow no longer entitled to their citizenship, forever imprinted with some mark of Cain.

What are opponents trying to say? Is it: We are afraid of the warrior class. We are afraid they might cause a war? American battle-hardened warriors understand the need to prevent human suffering, the chaos of destroyed communities, the loss of order, the lack of public services, and carnage caused by weapons, disease, or hopelessness. My own observation is that the greatest saber rattling often seems to occur from bloviating politicians who have never borne the sword.

What are opponents trying to say? Is it: We are afraid they might take over the government? Well, if there was ever an opportunity for that concern, it was in the 1790s. President George Washington, a general, was revered. He had appointed to his Cabinet five generals and a couple of colonels. If there was ever a time for a military takeover of the United States, it was then. Instead, George Washington relinquished the most important, powerful position in the land. He, like all warriors, understood what it meant to serve their country.

If you look at our own Secretaries of State, historically, nearly one-third had military service, with 10 obtaining senior rank. The parade of notable senior warriors serving as Secretary of State remind us that military leaders have often made the best foreign policy for our country. Why no such concerns about military takeover there? On observation, it appears as if America has a phobia of civilian control of diplomacy.

General Mattis is a warrior who will put the national security and peace of the United States above all other concerns. He will do it with humility and continued selfless service. He needs to be waivered and confirmed immediately for the good of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, and that the order of the House of January 6, 2015, regarding morning-hour debate not apply on that day.

Mr. Speaker, as a combat veteran, we should never have to fight for something that we can so readily produce here. Why should we put competitors in leverage over our economy and give them dollars to use against us?

We hear a lot of talk from progressives on the environment, Mr. Speaker. Imagine a life without petroleum, no cell phones, no asphalt for roads, no synthetic clothing, no plastics. On what do progressives suppose we run our magnificent Nation and lifestyle? Perhaps their answer is sweet bubble love and rainbow stew.