Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, today, there are over 800 so-called enterprise carriers from Mexico operating heavy trucks long distance in the United States. Now, what is wrong with that? Well, Mexico doesn't have any drug or alcohol testing of its commercial drivers. Mexico does not have a centralized database of commercial driver's licenses and driving offenses, making it difficult, if not impossible, to attract and disqualify drivers who are unsafe and who would be disqualified here in the United States. In Mexico, truck drivers are pretty much exploited and abused. They don't even have hours of service rules. Some drivers will drive for 1 or 2 days straight. In the United States, of course, we have very restrictive rules for safety on hours of service. Those laws, theoretically, apply to the 800 Mexican enterprise carriers operating in the United States. However, how many hours did that person drive before they got to the border? Was it 24 or 48? Then they cross over the border and they are limited. Congress objected and voted multiple times by huge bipartisan majorities on legislation I supported to say: No, we do not want these Mexican trucks ranging about here in the United States until they can prove that they meet the same standards as our truck drivers. We have had a few offenses. We don't even put special scrutiny on these enterprise carriers. We have very few inspectors out there. But they have managed to rack up some pretty horrific records on a random basis that raise huge questions about their safety. They had over 900 violations per driver that cannot read or speak the English language sufficiently to respond to official inquiries, a violation of the law; over 800 violations for brake-related issues-- worn brake hoses, defective brakes, et cetera; and hundreds of other violations for tire treads, exhaust leaks, and oil leaks. One company was fined $40,000. There is only one way to solve this issue, and that is to modify the NAFTA agreement. Remember, this was authorized. They were given national treatment; that is, Mexico is treated the same as the U.S. They won, in one of those secret tribunals, a huge judgment against the United States. The Obama administration caved in and allowed the door to be opened to these unsafe carriers operating in the United States. We can close that door again by just modifying NAFTA. The Trump administration is approaching this issue perhaps as early as next week in the NAFTA negotiations, and this should be at the top of their agenda: we will not give them national treatment; they will have to meet our standards and prove that they have met our standards; they have to develop a meaningful driver's license base; they will have to have drug and alcohol testing; they have to have hours of service. Then we can talk about whether or not they can operate in the United States. We had a system before NAFTA. Mexican truck drivers would bring the trucks just over the border. They were limited in how far they could go. They would drop the trailers. U.S. truck drivers would pick them up. Then there is one other issue here: Are we going to do to our trucking industry what we have done to so many in manufacturing? Are we going to drive down truck drivers' wages? It is already a tough business, particularly for independent drivers. Are we going to make them compete with people who are earning 2 bucks an hour and don't have to meet the same rules as they do? That is not fair competition, and it is not good for the American people, not for the jobs or the safety on our highways. So I am asking the Trump administration to hang tough on this issue and take away this national treatment that we are giving to Mexico, which does not have an equivalent system to the United States, and go to something that is based on reciprocity and equivalence. That would be a good change to the NAFTA agreement, which, of course, I opposed from day one.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this would be the fourth FAA extension in 2 years. It didn't have to be this way. We had a bill come out of the committee in the last Congress and this Congress that was bipartisan except for one provision; that is the privatization of the Air Traffic Organization. Now, there is a citizen group out there called Citizens for On Time Flights--actually, Airlines for America funds this--who are saying that we have to fly these old zigzag routes with 1950s' radar, and if only we, the airlines--the same airlines, by the way, that have had their dispatch and reservation systems go down 39 times in the last 2 years. The national air traffic system hasn't gone down in the last 2 years. But, anyway, they could do better, they say--or Citizens for On Time Flights say. But, unfortunately, it is based on lies. We have deployed a system where we could fly planes closer together. It is operational, actually, but the airlines haven't purchased the equipment to use it, and they are not going to purchase that equipment until 2020 or after. So they are saying the FAA is dragging its feet; the FAA is over budget; the FAA is this, the FAA is that. No. Actually, it is the airlines that haven't purchased the equipment to use that system. Now, the other most egregious part of this privatization proposal is the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Brady, has decided to give taxing authority to the private corporation. Now, they are not going to call it taxes. It is fees. Okay. But right now we finance our Air Traffic Organization with a 7\1/2\ percent tax, a progressive tax; the more expensive your ticket, the more you pay. That is how we finance, predominantly, our Air Traffic Organization. Well, this bill repeals that ticket tax. First thing that happens is the airlines raise their tickets by 7\1/2\ percent. They already did that once 5 years ago when there was a temporary lapse. Only two airlines didn't, Spirit and Alaska. Everybody else grabbed the money and ran, $400 billion. So Congress repeals the ticket tax. They raise prices 7\1/2\ percent, and then they would get three seats on the board. Three seats will go to direct airlines interests to decide what passengers and how people will pay to use the national airspace. So they, in all probability, will come up with a head tax. So, in addition to paying $7 billion a year for baggage fees, now we are going to start charging people to use the national airspace with a flat tax. So, hey, that is a big, great win for the people with first class tickets. The people, of course, who have got a $100 coach seat are now going to be paying more like 20 percent or 25 percent. And the person with a $2,000 ticket is going to pay, basically, 3-point- something percent. So this is all really unfortunate because we could have passed already out of this House a bipartisan bill, sent it to the Senate. Instead of trying to jam them with this bill that is loaded down with riders, we would be jamming them with good, long-term policy for the FAA and the traveling public and the aviation industry in America.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a temporary extension of the absolutely crucial Federal Aviation Administration--which runs our air traffic control system in the United States of America; the largest, most complex, and safest system in the world--failed. It actually will expire on October 1. That means that the source of funding for air traffic goes away and air traffic controllers may be working without salaries. Now, why are we here? We are here because the chairman of the committee insists that we must privatize the air traffic control of the United States, the largest, most complex, safest, most advanced system in the world, to make it even better. Unfortunately, he does not enjoy support adequate to get this bill through. He delayed the bill in the last Congress because he didn't have the votes, and the bill has been delayed multiple times in this Congress. It has bipartisan opposition, and the Senate isn't even thinking about this. Now, why are we here? Well, the airlines have this fake group they call the Citizens for On Time Flights. And they say we have to fly old zigzag patterns across the United States with World War II radar. Well, that would be really bad if it were true. However, it is a lie. In fact, we have direct routes, performance-based navigation. Actually, the government has built and deployed a functional system where we can fly every plane in America by GPS. But the airlines haven't wanted to make the investment in their planes. So, actually, they are making a case against themselves. Why aren't we using the system more efficiently? Because they have failed to purchase the equipment to fly planes closer together. If every plane doesn't have GPS, we can't fly them closer together because the air traffic controllers won't know exactly where they are. Now, they say: Well, if we get to run the system, it will be more efficient. It is ATC that is the problem. Well, here is June: In June, actually, airline operations, overscheduling, crew dispatch, mechanicals, the host of things that they have, caused 46 percent of the delays. And then they go on to say: Well, this is horrible, these delays. It costs Americans $20 billion a year. If that is true, then the airlines are costing American consumers $11.5 billion a year because they themselves won't clean up their acts. Again, they go on about ATO. How many times have their dispatch and reservation systems crashed in the last 5 years? Dozens of times, stranding millions of people. How many times has the entire ATC in the United States of America gone down? Zero. Zero times. So we should let them run it? They will run it better, just like their computer reservation and their dispatch systems? Come on. There is really just a very simple agenda here. We finance the current Air Traffic Organization with a 7.5 percent tax on every ticket--a progressive tax. The more expensive your ticket, the more you pay. That pays for about 75 percent of the system today. The bill that the chairman wants to push will repeal the ticket tax. Airlines will raise prices 7.5 percent. So everybody will still pay the same amount for their tickets. How do I know that? Because this tax temporarily lapsed 5 years ago and every airline in America, except for Spirit and Alaska, immediately raised ticket prices 7.5 percent. So then how are we going to pay for the system? Well, actually, they are going to impose a new head tax. That is right. You get on the plane and you will pay a new head tax to use the airspace of the United States of America. Now, that, of course, is a flat fee. So if you have a $100 ticket, 25 percent tax, $25 to sit in that seat. If you have a $3,000 ticket, well, you are going to pay a tiny fraction. It won't bother you very much at all. So we are going to go from a fair, progressive tax that finances the system to a flat head tax. The airlines get a $10 billion windfall. And guess what. Your elected Representative will have nothing to say about it. The people on the Ways and Means Committee, the Republicans here, have decided that the airlines will have a vote on the new user fee. Yes, they will. They have a designated seat on the board of the new private corporation, so they will vote on the user fee. Your elected Representative does not have a vote, does not have review capability. It is entirely removed from the jurisdiction of the United States Congress. This is absolutely outrageous. I mean, a campaign based on lies. We have a report from the Government Accountability Office saying, in fact, if we privatize, it will delay things in terms of implementing the new system and make it more expensive. I happen to have the draft report. It was censored by political people in the Bush administration. So the final report just kind of waters down those conclusions. But they are still in there, and I am happy to make the draft report available to anybody who wants to know honestly what is going on around here. This place is not straight up.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is purportedly an absolutely essential extension of authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration to continue to operate after October 1. Unfortunately, it has devolved into other issues because it has turned into a Christmas tree on the Republican side of the aisle. We need to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. The last time Congress failed to do this--and the ticket tax, which is what pays for air traffic control in America, expired--almost every airline in America raised their rates 7.5 percent, got a $400 million windfall, which the government lost, with the exception of two: I understand, Alaska and Spirit. So if we fail to reauthorize, we can expect that that will happen again. Actually, their long-term plan is to privatize the FAA, do away with the ticket tax, reap a $10 billion windfall, and then impose a new per- head fee to use our national airspace, which, by the way, Congress will have nothing to say about that. No elected official will have any authority over what new fees they charge. That is extraordinary. That came out of the Republican side of the Ways and Means Committee. What a bunch of losers. Come on. Give me a break. You are going to allow the airlines to have the authority, a private corporation, to tax people in America, and then say: Oh, it is not a tax; it is a user fee. It sure feels like a tax to me, and it is going to feel like that to your constituents. But when they complain, you will say: Oh, go talk to the private corporation. That is why we are here today, because the chairman of the committee has stubbornly persisted in attempting to privatize the air traffic organization of the United States of America, the most complex, the most efficient, and the safest system in the world. Yes, there are a few reforms that are needed there. Most of them have to do with us. Congress sequesters their money. Even though there is enough money raised in the ticket tax and other taxes to pay for the system, we sequester their money, we shut them down. We do dumb things like that. So I introduced a bill to take care of those problems, to exempt them from sequestration; to exempt them from budget shutdowns; and to require reforms in their personnel procedures, their policy procedures in terms of acquisitions; and to enhance the role of their coordinating committee, which has been doing a great job coordinating between the government and the airlines and all the people who use the system, not just the commercial airlines; and authorize funds to rebuild some of the major air traffic control centers, which are falling apart. Instead, the chairman has insisted that we must privatize because Canada did it, which is kind of a tiny fraction of what we are. Then the airlines have this fake group called the Citizens for On Time Flights, who say: We have to fly zigzag routes, which are World War II radar. No. Actually, we have deployed a system where you could fly all the planes in America closer together with GPS, but the airlines haven't bought the equipment, so they are blaming the FAA. That kind of stinks. So that is why we are here today. We have a bill that otherwise is totally agreed upon. If we were voting today on an FAA bill to give them a 6-year extension without privatization, with the reforms we need, we would be pressuring the Senate to get something done. Now, the Senate is hung up over whether or not you should have 1,500 hours of experience to sit in the copilot's seat. After the tragic Colgan accident, reforms were adopted that made these requirements. So they are hung up on that. On this side, we are hung up on privatizing the system. So it is sad that we have come to this point today. My hope is that we will move forward soon in the bipartisan tradition of my committee, and we will move an FAA bill and any amendments that are allowed, or any riders or anything that is in it will have only to do with aviation, not to do with flood insurance, not to do with any of all these other miscellaneous things that are being thrown in here today. We are here with the Ways and Means Committee on a bill that should be a transportation bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, there are groups proliferating across America who want to improve our system of aviation. Most people are not anxious to get on planes these days, given the conditions on the airplanes themselves, the treatment they get, the charges to put their bag in the overhead or sit on the aisle--all of these things. It has become quite an unpleasant experience. And then you have the aggravation of delays that ruin your trip, your business meeting, and sometimes your vacation. Last week, I talked about the Citizens for On Time Flights. Now we have a new group, another new grassroots group. Imagine this. It is called Flyers for Fairness. Now they want to fix the system. Their fix is to privatize the largest, most complex, safest system of air traffic in the world. They say that we are trapped in the 1950s using World War II radar. Well, that is not quite so true. Actually, it is not World War II radar. We are still using radar. However, we do have a system where we can fly planes closer together, more efficiently use the airspace, called ADS-B. They would have us believe that somehow this thing is infinitely delayed and overbudget and not happening. Well, actually, we had a GAO report last week that said, actually, it is on budget and it is going very well and, in fact, it is operational. Well, then why aren't we using it? Well, because the airlines, many of them flying older aircraft, do not want to upgrade their GPS systems. It is very expensive: $200,000 per plane. We calculated it for American Airlines. To equip every plane in their fleet, it would cost them 40 percent of their baggage fees--40 percent of their baggage fees. Now, Wall Street wouldn't like that, so they don't want to make the investment. Just like the airlines haven't invested in their reservations and dispatch systems which have repeatedly gone down, stranding, cumulatively, millions of people over the last 5 years, but they say they could do a better job running the air traffic system. Well, actually, the statistics don't quite bear out the arguments of Citizens for On Time Flights, and Flyers for Fairness, fake Astroturf groups actually funded by Airlines for America. In fact, this Flyers for Fairness is pretty funny. A guy named Alan Clendenin is the head of it. He won't say who finances the group. He is a former air traffic controller who vehemently opposed privatization as recently as June and now chairs this citizen group and is being paid a handsome salary by whom? I wonder. Now, here is the big problem with their argument. We have the most recent statistics on delays. Normally, the biggest cause of delays is weather. They would have you believe it is the air traffic system. It is not. In fact, the number one cause of delays in the United States of America today is airline operations. So that is right; the airlines themselves, when they schedule 15 planes to take off at the same time at one airport, when the airport can only take off 1 plane a minute, that causes delays. When they mess up their crews' schedules and they do other things, that causes delays. When they fly decrepit aircraft and they have maintenance issues, that causes delays. Forty-six percent of the delays in June were due to airline operations. How is that going to be dealt with by privatizing the safest, largest, most complex, and sophisticated air traffic control system in the world? The second largest cause, as you can see from the chart, is bad weather. Actually, the FAA has developed a way to help deal with that and more efficiently reroute planes called Data Comm, which is in all of our major airports now so we can deal with it. So we have cut down on weather delays about as much as we probably can. There are always going to be weather delays. Then the ATC system itself, in fact, improvements are coming there with a very sophisticated electronic flight script, which will be in all of our control towers within 3 years. It is already in our en route centers. We are told that they are using paper strips. Well, the paper strips are actually infallible. They don't have computer malfunctions, unlike their reservation and dispatch systems which frequently strand travelers. The FAA made a business decision to have a much more sophisticated form of electronic strip which will help sort out traffic at dispatch on the ground, given the routes they are going to take automatically, and reduce congestion at airports and reduce delays in the future. So what would those private interests do differently? The bottom line is they would profit from it. That is all. They wouldn't make it any better.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was just reading a message from Citizens for On Time Flights. Now, I fly a lot and I would love to be on time more. They are talking about our aviation system here. Air traffic control is a World War II relic and saying that if we only would give it over to the private sector, i.e., the airlines, it would work better. Well, let's see, a couple of things wrong with that statement. Number one, the greatest problem with air delays is weather. Now, actually, we are dealing with that technologically through a new system called Datacom, where, at our 55 busiest airports, the pilots and the air traffic controllers now can communicate by text and they don't have to repeat over and over on the radio the messages; many fewer misunderstandings, easier to reroute. This has been implemented by the FAA. What is the number two cause? Oh, it is airline operations and scheduling--the airlines themselves. They are the second greatest cause of delays, they, in themselves. So it turns out that Citizens for On Time Flights is actually funded by a group of airlines. Now, what is the bottom line here? Do we have a World War II relic, as Gary Cohn has said after he read some of this and heard this propaganda? No, actually. We have the most advanced system in the world. We could fly planes today closer together using GPS technology called ADS-B and not use the older radar system, except--the system is up and running, except the airlines won't pay to put the equipment in their planes. They say it is too expensive. So they are complaining about the FAA and saying they could do a better job, they could do it more efficiently, they could fly planes closer together, but they won't invest in the equipment. Now, it is very expensive. For instance, American Airlines would have to spend 40 percent of last year's baggage fees to equip every one of their planes so they could use this modern system--40 percent of their baggage fees. Wow, what a hit they would take for that. Now, what is the bottom line here? The bottom line is we fund the current system--the largest, most complex, most advanced in the world--with a tax on the tickets. It is a progressive tax; the more you pay for your ticket, the more you pay for air traffic control, 7\1/2\ percent tax. For years the airlines have said to me: That's our money. I said: What do you mean it's your money? I pay the tax when I buy a ticket. They said: No. That's our money. We should have it. In fact, a few years ago, when the FAA bill expired for 2 weeks because of a chairman named John Mica, every airline in America, except for one--when the 7\1/2\ percent tax went away for 2 weeks, every airline in America, except Alaska Airlines, raised their ticket prices 7\1/2\ percent. So what is the bottom line of this bill? This bill--going to be pushed by the Republicans over here--would repeal the 7\1/2\ percent tax. That would be a $10 billion windfall for the aviation industry. And then what? How are we going to pay for it? Well, the private corporation will decide. Congress will have nothing to say about how it is paid for, and it is going to be paid for with a head tax. So you get on the plane; they will say: Oh, it's 50 bucks to sit in that seat, to use the public airspace of the United States of America. That's how the corporation is going to pay for it, with a head tax. So we go from a progressive tax to a regressive tax. If you buy a $50 ticket, you are going to pay 50 bucks to sit in the seat. So it is now $100. Today you would have paid $3.75. So that is the real bottom line here. It is not about efficiency. It is not bringing the system up to date. Now, they have done a great job with this propaganda, and the chairman of the committee has done a great job. They talk about those paper strips. They use paper strips in the traffic control towers. Well, yeah, we do. It works real well. We replaced them in the en route centers, but we haven't replaced them yet in the towers. It is infallible. It has worked forever. It is efficient. But we are going to go to electronic flight strips, and we are going to do it in a way that actually is going to improve the efficiency of the system and dispatch planes better. Now, they say: Well, Canada has electronic flight strips. Yeah, they did it for billing purposes because they charge per flight. They don't, and are not going to, have the new system we are going to have, which is going to sort out all the planes by their future routes, everything as they depart from the airport, and it is going to be way more efficient. So, actually, the FAA is doing an excellent job. And 7 to 10 years ago I never would have said that. But they have got it straightened out over the last 7 years. Randy Babbitt and Mr. Huerta have got it straightened out. It is working today. There is a GAO report, which I am releasing today, which the Republicans tried to repress, which says, in fact, the system is on time, on budget, and, in fact, privatization will delay the modernization of the system. So the House is going to push and the Republicans are going to push for a bill that actually is going to set us back instead of moving us forward into the 21st century air traffic control system.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues came to the floor this morning and said: It kind of smells like bacon in here. I said: That is because the Republicans are cooking their budget just off the floor. That is what they are doing. They are cooking up a budget with cooked books. Here we are with a national debt of nearly $20 trillion and the highest priority on the Republican side of the aisle--reflected both in their so-called healthcare bill, which was actually tax cuts only for people who earned over $250,000 a year--is tax cuts for people who earn over $250,000 a year, particularly targeted toward those in the top one-tenth of 1 percent--those who earn millions of dollars a year. They say that is the cure for all of America's ills: just cut their taxes, and the benefits will trickle down onto all the rest of us. I think a lot of people don't much like to be trickled on in that manner. What are the priorities, other than tax cuts, in their budget? A massive increase in spending at the Pentagon. Remember, the Pentagon is the only agency of the Federal Government that is unauditable. That is right. Every year, every agency of the government is subject to an audit, but not the Pentagon. They say: Hey, we can't be audited. The books are a mess. We can't be audited. Last fall, there was a report that $125 billion went missing from the Pentagon budget. The Pentagon attempted to repress that report. God forbid we should bring any fiscal accountability to the Pentagon. They are just going to shower more money on them, in the hope that some of it gets spent on the real needs of the military. But there is no sense of responsibility there. How are they going to get to their illusory balanced budget if they are having massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and massive increases in spending at the Pentagon, with no fiscal accountability? Well, simple. We are just going to cut the programs that average and struggling Americans depend upon, like student financial aid. They don't know anybody at the country club whose kids need help going to college. So those programs get cut. Hungry kids? They have never met one. Never met a hungry kid. So let's cut the school lunch program again, and let's cut food stamps for families. But they are breaking some new ground here and breaking some of the President's promises. The President promised he would not cut Medicare. Well, their proposed budget cuts Medicare. Yes, it cuts Medicare. It would cut $500 billion out of Medicare. It assumes that, instead of getting a guaranteed benefit, an earned benefit that every American over 65 can have, you will get vouchers, and you can go into the private insurance market and do better. It sounds a little bit like the failing ObamaCare plan that they talk about all the time. Now they want to put seniors in that same boat, instead of guaranteed Medicare. Then, of course, $1.5 trillion cuts in Medicaid. That is welfare. Well, actually, the largest recipients of Medicaid are seniors in long- term care. A lot of people are going to be surprised when grandma or granddad is out in the street or comes home and needs a lot of help and assistance and there is none to be had. So that is the largest group. Now, what is the second largest group of freeloaders on Medicaid? Oh, it is kids. God forbid that kids should get medical help when they are growing up. Let's have them long-term, lifetime disabled. Deny them medical care when they are young and we will just worry about all that later. This is quite a set of priorities they are putting before us and fiscally irresponsible. So as I have in past years, I am introducing a fiscally responsible balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, not like the Republican one that said you have to have two-thirds to increase taxes and one vote to cut taxes, no. This one would say you have to balance the budget, but you do it by prudent reductions in spending, and also you have to deal with the revenue side. And, oh, by the way, mine protects Medicare and Social Security totally from these sorts of cuts. It makes them into the entitlement programs they are supposed to be that the Republicans want to do away with in their budget. So I think there is a better way to go forward, but just like in their fake healthcare bill, which was really disguised tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, they are now giving us a supposedly prudent fiscal budget blueprint, which, again, is huge tax cuts for the wealthy, massive increases for the Pentagon and cuts for everybody else.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I voted against H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. The legislation includes several provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 2.4 percent. Those who serve in uniform have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and have earned and deserve a pay raise. It also includes funding for Ukraine and Eastern Europe security initiatives to counter Russia's heightened military provocations and annexation of Crimea. Despite these important initiatives, I have strong concerns with H.R. 2810. This legislation authorizes more than $688.3 billion, which is $70.4 billion more than the FY 2017 authorized level and $28.5 billion more than the president's request. This includes $74.6 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, an account which is not counted in the budget and is not paid for. It adds to the deficit and is used as a slush fund by the Pentagon. Unlike every other federal agency, the Department of Defense (DOD) refuses to complete a financial audit so taxpayers know how the biggest bureaucracy in the federal government spends their money. In fact, a shocking report released last December exposed $125 billion in administrative waste that the Pentagon tried to bury from being viewed by the public. I refuse to support increased bureaucratic waste at the expense of American taxpayers and our men and women in uniform. A more accountable and transparent department would ensure taxpayer dollars are directed towards the needs of our troops and the benefits they deserve, rather than buying unnecessary weapon systems, sustaining a Cold War era military force, and giving the president a blank check to fund wars Congress hasn't authorized. I have always advocated for maintaining Congress's constitutionally- confirmed prerogative to declare war under the War Powers Act and limiting the President's authority to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress. I strongly oppose the NDAA's continued authorization of spending for wars that are not congressionally approved. The Pentagon uses the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) to continue to justify the 16 years our troops have been fighting in the Middle East. In his short time in office. President Trump has already sent troops to Iraq, Syria and elsewhere without seeking a new Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), a violation of the War Powers Act. Additionally, the bill prohibits the closing of Guantanamo Bay, which costs more than $100 million each year to house 41 prisoners and has been used as a top recruiting tool by terrorists. Frankly, the prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a black eye for the United States, has eroded relationships with our allies, undermined U.S. missions abroad, and put U.S. citizens and our troops at risk of retaliation. Congress can make responsible cuts to our defense budget without jeopardizing the safety of our troops or undermining our national security. Fiscal responsibility and accountability at the Pentagon would allow for funds to be better spent supporting the basic needs of our troops, meeting our obligations to veterans of past wars, and ensuring our true defense needs are prioritized

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. And the other good thing is, if we were to spend that money, according to the National Utility Contractors Association, every billion dollars--just $1 billion--invested in our Nation's water infrastructure creates, or sustains, 27,000 jobs. So do the math. The President can do math. He is a businessman. That would be 540,000 jobs if we delivered on the President's promise to make significant new investments with Federal partnership in clean water in America. So, we can put together health, cleaning up the environment, and jobs, as opposed to the Republican bill, which deteriorates health, deteriorates the environment and protections, and won't create any jobs. Just one quick quote here: ``The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is a perfect example of the type of program that should be reauthorized because it creates jobs while benefiting the environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment.'' That is from the Oregon Water Resources Congress. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude as we proceed to this absurdity of saying, by deteriorating health, we will create jobs.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his initiative here to actually create some jobs. Mr. Speaker, the premise of the legislation before us today is that if we allow more pollution--particularly ozone pollution, which is very detrimental to the health of asthmatics; I mean, bad for the health of everyday Americans, but particularly to the 25 million asthmatics, seniors, and others--the premise is that by polluting the air more with ozone, we will create jobs. Now, actually, I have got to agree with the Republicans on this. They will create more jobs by polluting the air. Pulmonary specialists will be very busy. And then, oh, the inhaler manufacturers. There has been some great press about the inhaler manufacturers in the last year, where they are quadrupling and sextupling the price to price gouge people. Well, they are going to have a heyday. In fact, I believe they have endorsed this legislation. And then we are going to have a whole new group of people working on the streets in America. It is going to be a whole new entrepreneurial class. There are actually people in Beijing doing this now. The air is so polluted in Beijing that on many days they say: Don't go outside. But, I mean, you have to go outside sometimes, you have to go to the grocery store, or you have to go to work. They now have a very large industry of street vendors who sell oxygen; so, as you are about to collapse on the street in Beijing, someone will sell you a good whiff of oxygen for whatever they charge for it. We are going to bring that industry to America. So this bill does have phenomenal potential to create a whole new bunch of jobs with oxygen street vendors and then, of course, the pulmonary specialists, the inhaler manufacturers, and others. The President actually, as a candidate, said that he would triple the amount of money that would be spent on clean water State revolving funds; he would triple it. Now, interestingly enough, the Congressional Budget Office came out with an analysis yesterday of the President's proposed budgets over the next 10 years, which theoretically is going to increase investment and infrastructure. And they said: Actually, not so much. Actually, in fact, his cuts basically would lead to a reduction in investment in clean water and a reduction in investment in ground transportation. So, instead of tripling the investment and putting many people to work, the President, actually, is going to cut investment in clean water in his proposed budget. Now, I know he didn't write the budget. You know, he has got this rightwing guy running the CBO--Mulvaney, founder of the Freedom Caucus. But Trump is somewhat responsible for a budget that has his name on it, even if he didn't write it, even if he didn't know what was in it, and even if he doesn't know that it contradicts promises he made as a candidate, which he is not going to deliver as President. But, that said, I want to help the President out here. So, this bill simply delivers on the President's promise to triple the amount of investment to $25 billion. Now, do we need it? Heck, yeah, we need it. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 infrastructure report card, America's wastewater treatment systems got a grade of D-plus--not too good. And there is a backlog of more than $40 billion in clean water infrastructure. The Federal Government needs to become an honest partner with our cities, counties, and others, who have needs to invest in their wastewater systems. We did it before when we cleaned up our rivers back in the sixties, seventies, and eighties with the Clean Air Act, and we need to do it again. We need the Federal partnership. We need this investment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays, I was unable to speak on the floor in support of my legislation. The Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act is a bipartisan, no-cost, common sense bill that will go a long way to helping resolve some of the problems the Federal government and its haphazard policy shifts have created for three western Oregon tribes. The bill provides fairness for the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Coquille Indian Tribe. Provisions of this bill were passed by voice vote in both the 113th and 114th Congresses. I hope this Congress it can finally become law. The tribes have waited entirely too long to receive the fairness owed to them. For over a hundred years federal policies have unfairly disadvantaged Indian tribes in Western Oregon. After signing many treaties with the Tribes, the United States removed them from their original homelands and put them on only two reservations--established to house potentially more than 60 tribal governments. In 1954, Congress made things even worse. All tribes west of the Cascades lost federal recognition when the Western Oregon Termination Act became law. Scholars called it The Termination Era, and it was terrible federal Indian policy. It was so bad, that it was formally rebuked by Congress less than 30 years later. In the 1970's, Congress began the process of restoring the Western Oregon tribes to federal recognition and cleaning up the mess and injustice the United States had made. In fact, I began my Congressional career as the original sponsor of the Coquille Restoration Act, now law, which restored one of Oregon's terminated tribes. Yet even today, it remains difficult for these tibes to function as the sovereign nations they are and to govern themselves effectively. Unlike many tribes, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribe, as well as the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, are deprived of any land held in trust. Unlike any other tribe in the United States, the Coquille Indian Tribe must function under a legal anomaly with regard to managing its forest. The Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act makes good on decades-old promises to restore land bases for the Coos and Cow Creek Tribes, and it puts the Coquille Indian Tribe's forest management on equal footing with those of other Indian tribes nationwide.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on June 29th I voted in favor of H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, which increases penalties for deported criminals that return to the United States. The bill is named after Kate Steinle, who was killed in San Francisco by a Mexican national who had seven felony convictions on his record and had been deported five times and had once again returned to the United States. I have always argued that we need comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken immigration system. In 2013, I cosponsored the House Democratic comprehensive immigration reform bill, H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. This bill included similar provisions to Kate's Law and had broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Opponents of the bill argue that the bill does not make exceptions for asylum seekers or victims of human trafficking. That is why I voted in favor of a Motion to Recommit H.R. 3004 offered by Representative Zoe Lofgren which would safeguard vulnerable victims of human trafficking that voluntarily present themselves at a port of entry. Unfortunately, it failed on a 193 to 232 vote. I have always maintained that undocumented immigrants who commit a crime in the U.S. should be deported. While this bill is not perfect, Kate's Law ensures that dangerous criminals are prosecuted accordingly. I am committed to regaining control of our country's borders and have fought to restrict individuals who would do our citizens harm--both through terrorist attacks, drug smuggling, and other illicit activity-- from entering the United States. H.R. 3004 is not a perfect bill. It now heads to the Senate, where I hope it will be improved to include exceptions for victims of trafficking and those seeking asylum, similar to the comprehensive bill in 2013, and sent back to the House for further debate.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity. As he noted, the President has talked and tweeted incessantly about creating jobs and infrastructure investment, but, unfortunately, the only substantive proposal to come out of the White House that relates to infrastructure, infrastructure investment, and jobs is in his budget, and it actually reduces Federal investment in infrastructure, which would basically eliminate jobs. So I mean, the bill before us today, bipartisan bill on apprenticeships is great, but you have got to apprentice for something that is real: a job in the end, construction. America is falling apart, and, right now, we have nothing but rhetoric coming out of the White House, and now ideology. They are talking about privatizing all of the infrastructure in the United States so that you will pay tolls everywhere you go, and, you know, they call it asset recycling. They have come up with a catchy new name. That has been floated, but they haven't put any substance behind it. So this amendment would allow the House to debate and pass H.R. 2510, Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. This bill would provide $25 billion in direct infrastructure investment over the next 5 years to address America's crumbling wastewater infrastructure and local water quality challenges. The state of our water infrastructure, according to the American Society of Engineers' report card of 2017, is a D-plus. Meanwhile, municipalities across the country have a backlog of more than $40 billion--B, billion--in clean water infrastructure projects, and, according to the EPA, communities need close to $300 billion over the next 20 years to bring their systems into a state of good repair. It is clear that we cannot continue to neglect the serious needs of our aging water infrastructure. As these systems fail and degrade, they pose a risk to the health and safety of our citizens and obviously the environment. I know the President promised, during his campaign, to make clean water a priority. I agree with that. He promised to triple funding for State revolving loan fund programs to help States and local governments upgrade critical drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Well, here is a chance to deliver on that promise. H.R. 2510 does exactly that. It triples investment in America's crumbling water infrastructure. I was a county commissioner at a time when the Federal Government was a good partner, and, in those days, they put up 85 percent of the cost of our wastewater system. We put up the other 15. You know, this could--by renewing this legislation and a commitment to the State revolving loan fund programs and adding in a grant component for lower income areas, that could, you know, be a great step in terms of Federal partnership and creating actual jobs for the apprentices that this bill wants to create. There is widespread support for this legislation. I include in the Record letters of endorsement from 30 separate groups. Ohio Environmental Council, Columbus, OH. Hon. Garret Graves, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC. Hon. Grace Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Napolitano: On behalf of the Ohio Environmental Council, I am writing to enthusiastically support the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. This bill bolsters the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) by authorizing $20 billion over five years for loans to improve wastewater infrastructure in local communities. It also provides crucial additional funding to help states control water pollution and address challenges from outdated sewer systems. The need for this bill has never been greater as the nation faces a $40 billion backlog of clean water infrastructure projects, with cities and towns needing $300 billion over 20 years to update their water systems. In Ohio, the American Society of Civil Engineers found our state needs a total $14.58 billion for wastewater improvements. The Clean Water SRF is an essential resource to help meet this need. The Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) program, Ohio's Clean Water SRF, continues to provide fundamental capacity to improve water quality for Ohio communities and residents. The program includes several different loan options that help both cities and rural communities prevent water pollution. This includes funding to upgrade and replace Home Sewage Treatment Systems (HSTS), as well as assistance for wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater activities, and efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution. Interest from the WPCLF program funds the preservation and restoration of aquatic habitat to counter the loss of natural systems that helped maintain the health of Ohio's water resources. Since its inception the Clean Water SRF has provided $7.2 billion serving 621 villages, cities, counties and sewer districts helping to curb pollution while providing quality jobs. To ensure this program's continuing success and help Ohio address our water infrastructure needs, I urge your support for the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. Sincerely, Heather Taylor-Miesle, Executive Director.

Mr. DeFAZIO. And according to the National Utility Contractors Association, every billion dollars invested in our Nation's water infrastructure creates or sustains 27,000 real jobs in the private sector. That means that the $20 billion in Federal investment in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, including H.R. 2510, would create or sustain approximately 540,000 jobs. This is real. It is real. Real jobs for real people and real improvements in the infrastructure of this country. This would be a great step forward, and I urge that my colleagues adopt the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on June 7th and June 8th, 2017, I missed the following votes due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted: On Roll Call Number 292, To Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Number 293, On Agreeing to the Michelle Lujan Grisham Amendment to H.R. 2213, I would have voted Aye. On Roll Call Number 294, On Final Passage of H.R. 2213, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Number 295, On Agreeing to the Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 10, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Number 296, On Agreeing to the Hollingsworth Amendment to H.R. 10, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Number 297, On Agreeing to the Faso Amendment to H.R. 10, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Number 298, On Agreeing to the Buck Amendment to H.R. 10, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Number 299, On Final Passage of H.R. 10, I would have voted No.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, In 2008, Wall Street's criminal behavior drove the economy into the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, creating the grossly unbalanced playing field that is our economy today. In response, Congress passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in 2010. While Dodd-Frank fell short on major banking reforms, I supported it because it was better than no reforms at all. I am appalled that House Republicans pushed through the Financial CHOICE Act, which would gut major provisions of Dodd-Frank and allow Wall Street to return to the same reckless practices that occurred before the law was passed. The Financial CHOICE Act removes the watchdog from Wall Street, opening the door to destructive trading at the expense of pension funds, value investors, and average Americans. Additionally, those on Wall Street who broke the law and used Americans' investments as a casino should be held accountable for their deceptive actions, including jail time. Yet, to this day, no Wall Street executive has seen jail time for the damage they did on our financial system. Instead, Wall Street executives are being rewarded with powerful jobs in the Trump administration. It is outrageous that Republicans want to allow the banking sector to return to ``business as usual'' with dangerous financial products and high-speed speculation. We need stronger, not weaker, financial reforms, which is why I'm taking on reckless Wall Street trading with my `Putting Main Street FIRST Act' legislation to discourage speculative trading by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on stock, bond, and derivative trades. Congress should be fighting for the interests of the American people, not Wall Street.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I will be unable to vote today on H.R. 2213, the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act. If I would be present, I would vote against the bill. While this bill purports to fast track the hiring of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents in order to ensure our national security, it would actually water down hiring practices and allow potential vulnerabilities in the country's largest law enforcement agency. H.R. 2213 would allow certain CBP applicants to bypass polygraph testing. In 2010 Congress passed the Anti-Border Corruption Act, which mandated CBP applicants pass a polygraph test as part of their hiring process. This bill was an essential step after an influx of corruption cases were revealed within the agency--ranging from drug trafficking to accepting bribes. Decreasing hiring standards as proposed by H.R. 2213 would do exactly what the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 fixed. Instead of finding common-sense ways to expedite the hiring process without compromising the integrity of the agency, H.R. 2213 irresponsibly cuts corners in an attempt to keep President Trump's campaign promises of quickly increasing border patrol agents. I am absolutely committed to regaining control of our country's borders and have continually fought to restrict individuals who would do our citizens harm--both through terrorist attacks or drug smuggling--from entering the United States. This ill-conceived legislation does nothing to ensure increased border security.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. The Republicans would take us back to the good old days. Remember the good old days? Enron, the collapse of Wall Street because of millions of bad mortgages and virtual collateralized debt obligations, and other schemes that pyramided the problem to a point where it caused the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Now Goldman Sachs populates the White House. They run the Treasury. Now they want to deregulate Wall Street again with a so-called CHOICE Act. Now, there are problems with overregulation of the community banks and small banks; they didn't cause the problem. But they want to say, ``No, let's just deregulate everybody again,'' not targeting the problem. So they are going to repeal the Volcker Rule. They are going to do away with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. No more requiring lenders to be certain that people are borrowers who can repay their loans. No, the credit card companies, the payday lenders, the debt collectors, there are no abuses there. We don't need a watchdog overlooking them. And then, finally, they do away with something called orderly liquidation authority. Back to the good old days when firms on Wall Street were too big to fail. We can't have in place a process that would allow us to remove overpaid executives who crash their firm and to make the stockholders pay instead of the taxpayers. That is what this bill does today. It is the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth time the United States House of Representatives has considered this bill. Now, we have heard a lot of alternative facts today. Let's have some real facts. Killing trees, well, first off, here is the extensive application. It is slightly over three pages long and it can be filed electronically, so we don't need to kill any trees. Allegations that somehow this slows down control of mosquito abatement or Zika virus are absolutely false. Anybody can apply a pesticide in a public health situation. They have 30 days to file the paperwork online afterwards. It takes about 5 minutes. It has such technical things as your name and address, your pesticide applicator license verified with a certain State, where you are going to use the pesticide or herbicide. Now, why would we want to know that? Or maybe, why wouldn't we want not to know that? Because that is what they are saying on that side of the aisle. There is nothing registered with the Department of Agriculture. Yes, we have FIFRA. These pesticides and herbicides have been registered. They have labels--it can't be applied over water; it can't be applied here; it can't be applied there--and we trust the applicators to follow those rules. But when they actually use the herbicides and pesticides absent this form, this burdensome 3\1/2\-page form, we won't know. Now, why would we care? Well, this is essentially the 20th anniversary of a massive fish kill in Jackson County, Oregon. In that incident, an operator applied an aquatic herbicide in an irrigation canal that, when it leaked into the nearby creek, killed 92,000 steelhead. Now, we kind of care about our steelhead in the Northwest, so that was a problem. So then the Federal agency said, Well, this is kind of a problem when someone does that, 92,000 steelhead. Plus, anybody who drank the water was poisoned, et cetera, et cetera. But we don't want to know about that on that side of the aisle because Dow Chemical doesn't like it because maybe it inhibits sales of some of these chemicals that cause these sorts of problems. Now, we have data now because of these forms, and we know about areas that are impaired. In my State, which is like the clean, green State, 825 miles of rivers and streams and 10,000 acres of lakes and ponds in the State of Oregon are impaired by pesticide contamination. That is something we should do something about. People are drinking that water; they are swimming in that water; their kids are bathing in that water. I think that is a problem. But we don't want to know about that. This is just a horrible restraint on pesticide applications. Now, we heard a lot of other hooey here. It is like: This is so difficult; it is so difficult to do. I was talking to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. He said, well, farmers don't want to file those forms. If they hired a pesticide applicator, that person could file the form for them. Or, yeah, maybe they are going to have to file the 3-page form if it involves the waters of the United States of America. If it doesn't involve the waters, you don't have to file it. So this is really an incredible thing. Now, we have taken this up numerous times. It was the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act in the 109th Congress--the same bill, exactly the same bill. Then in the 112th and the 113th Congresses, it was the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. It still didn't work. It didn't become law then. Well, wait a minute. Let's pass it on to public fears. Last Congress, it was called the Zika Vector Control Act in the 114th Congress. We just heard a lot of hooey about how this will inhibit killing mosquitoes, which, of course, is absolutely not true. But now we are back to here. So the Zika Control Act and the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act are now back to the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. Now, in the past 6 years, since this paperwork was required, or electronic work, do you know how many pesticide applicators have faced significant impacts because of these protections? None. Zero. Do you know how many applicators have raised problems with the Clean Water Act pesticide general permit to EPA? None. Zero. In fact, I specifically asked this question of the EPA's head of water at a Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing. No specific instances where the clean water permit was causing problems or impacts on pesticide application. Yet here we are again, one more time, under the guise of reducing this horrible regulatory burden: name, address, phone number, what did you apply? Where are you registered to apply these sorts of permits? That is useful information. I had a couple more instances in Oregon. Tiller, Oregon, again, right in the same area where the steelhead were killed. That same creek was contaminated with atrazine in 2014. Local residents who drank the water complained, and they also complained of the overspray. Then, in 2013, a helicopter in Curry County, Oregon, oversprayed residents. Now, if they didn't have to file these forms, we wouldn't know who did it, when they did it, and what the chemical was. I guess that is kind of what the Republicans want. If someone oversprays your property and sprays stuff on you: ``Geez, I don't know. That was one of those black helicopters. We don't know where it came from, or who that was. We don't know what they dumped on you. Sorry.'' That is burdensome paperwork. We wouldn't want to require that kind of burdensome paperwork. So that is why we are here again today for the fifth time with the fifth remaining rationale for what we are doing here today, and it still fails the smell test.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the passing of a Capitol Hill icon, Joseph S. Miller, described by The Oregonian in 1987 as the dean of lobbyists in the nation's capital who specialized in Pacific Northwest issues. Joe was a seminal figure in Northwest politics and became well-known in Washington, D.C. His career spanned over 70 years, and he earned a reputation for having great political insight and courage. Joe was a respected journalist and came from the infamous Class of 1943 at the University of Oregon, which included Les Anderson, Jeff Kitchens, Aaron U. Jones, and Bill Roth, Jr. After serving in the Army in the Aleutian Islands during World War II, he wrote for Northwest newspapers. He covered drama, literature, labor, politics, sports, and music. One weekend, he covered a heavyweight fight, a college football game, and the Seattle Symphony. The next day he ran into the president of the symphony, who said, ``Joe, last night I thought I went to a symphony concert, but when I read your review this morning I knew I'd been to a title fight instead.'' Gradually, politics and labor issues became Joe's focus. In 1958, Joe moved his wife Rosalie Daggy Miller and their two daughters from Seattle to Washington, D.C., to become the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He helped elect many Democratic senators, including Senators Ed Muskie, Gaylord Nelson, Bill Proxmire, and Frank Church. Later he advised the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The Washington Post once called him the Democrats' answer to Madison Avenue. Senator Dick Neuberger said of Joe that he ``would never base a campaign on personal malice or an appeal to a hate element. His politics are never bitter.'' Joe had an almost encyclopedic memory for details and always told it like it was. These talents usually served him well as he represented clients such as the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, United Steelworkers of America, American Association of Railroads, Port of Portland, Western Forest Industries Association, and Association of Oregon and California Land Grant Counties. A life-long Democrat, Joe had great friendships and professional relationships with many Republicans. As he once said, ``We would hash out issues all day long, but when 5 o'clock came, we were all on the same side.'' Joe and his second wife, Erna Wahl Miller, personal secretary to Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, were valued friends and hosts to many in their home on Capitol Hill until Erna's death in 2004. In 2008, Joe's memoir, The Wicked Wine of Democracy, was published by the University of Washington Press. The book is a candid look at politics from the 1950s onward. Joe wanted to call his memoir When Politics Was Fun, but the UW Press, publishing the book as a potential political-science text, had other ideas. For over 40 years, Joe met for lunch every Friday at the Irish Times on Capitol Hill with a drop-in group of old and new friends. He respected ``the wit and wisdom of his Friday lunch gang,'' which represented a wide range of political thought. Joe's ability to listen to other points of view and to find common ground kept his voice relevant and in demand throughout his life. Joe was a great believer in the ``American Political Way'' and said, ``We have overcome many challenges over two centuries and have always emerged a stronger and more democratic nation as a result.'' Thanks to Joe Miller for his dedication and contributions to the political process. His positive outlook and ability to adapt to changing times, even in his 90s, will be missed.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize University of Oregon Assistant Vice President and University Registrar Sue Eveland who is retiring after fourteen years of service to the university. Ms. Eveland has been an invaluable member of the UO community since she was first hired in 2001 and subsequently with her appointment as the Interim University Registrar in 2008 and later University Registrar. During this time, Ms. Eveland also served as President of both the Pacific Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (PACRAO) and the Oregon Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (OrACRAO), demonstrating her commitment not only to University of Oregon faculty, students and staff, but also to her colleagues nationwide. Prior to her career at the University of Oregon, Ms. Eveland spent 17 years at Iowa State University, serving in various roles in the Offices of Admissions and the Registrar. Colleagues report that Ms. Eveland has shown herself to be innovative and effective, bringing opportunities for staff development, growth and collaboration into each of her roles. Alongside her team at the UO, she was able to implement online grading, online course evaluations, an online graduation application and a schedule builder, among other efficiencies. Her work has continually simplified and improved the lives of the students she serves. Her colleagues say she encourages her staff to keep perspective, remain positive, be creative and have fun. Sue Eveland retires from the University of Oregon having dedicated nearly two decades to improving services for students. I join with the University of Oregon in recognizing Sue Eveland for her contributions to higher education, and I congratulate her for her many years of exemplary service.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the so-called American Health Care Act is up today. If you are over age 50, insurance companies can charge you five times the normal rate. This couple, 64 years old, $30,000-a-year income, $1,700 for a policy now. After this great bill passes, this big beautiful bill, $15,000 a year for health care out of a $30,000 income. Now, how the heck does that work? In the next 3 years, 24 million Americans will lose coverage. Among them, 153,000 in my district on the Oregon health plan so-called extended Medicaid. But that wasn't bad enough to get this bill through the House. The rightwing demanded more, so they have done away with the preexisting condition exclusion. Now they say: Oh, no, it is still in there, but the insurance company can charge you whatever they want. You have cancer? Oh, that will be $100,000 a year for your policy. Oh, but don't worry, don't worry, they are going to have a risk pool. A few Members with weak knees went down to the White House to get a deal with the dealmaker, Trump, $8 billion. A lot of money for people with preexisting conditions. Unfortunately, there are 130 million American adults with preexisting conditions, as described by the insurance industry. Over 5 years, that will be $1 per month per person. That is going to buy a hell of a lot of health care; right?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, so 100 days. Candidate Trump made much about, you know, the pernicious influence of peddlers in Washington, D.C., the revolving door between high-level government political appointees and lobby firms. He called D.C. a swamp again and again and again, and he promised to drain it. So how is he doing? He was going to have a 5-year ban, if you worked for him in an eye- level position, 5-year ban from becoming a lobbyist. Of course, there was already an existing provision, ethics provision that forbids lobbyists from joining agencies that lobbied in the prior 2 years. So let's check in. Number 1, Chad Wolf, lower right. He has been named chief of staff for the Transportation Security Administration. For the last 2 years, he has lobbied the TSA to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new carry-on luggage screening device. Now, as chief of staff, he is in the position to decide whether or not that agency will purchase the device as it is being tested and evaluated for use. Now, how could that be? Well, President Trump eliminated that ethics provision that you couldn't lobby, join an agency which you have been lobbying for 2 years; so hence, number 1, Chad Wolf. Number 2, Michael Catanzaro. He is the top White House energy adviser. He worked last year as a lobbyist for energy companies, oil, gas, and coal, and was lobbying to stop or overturn the Obama attempts to deal with climate change, including the Clean Power Plan and various other things, but he is now the top White House adviser. Okay. Well, we are not doing so good so far. Well, how about the 5- year prohibition? That is pretty stiff. None of these guys are going to leave their lucrative lobby jobs and come and work as a public servant at those low salaries if they can't go back to lobbying, right, so that has got to be cleaning up the swamp. Whoops. Oh, no, not so much. Marcus Peacock, senior White House budget adviser, he is leaving the Trump administration to join the Business Roundtable, 77 days after he started working for President Trump. He is going to lead the policy group on key issues relating to the Trump agenda, including taxes, infrastructure, regulatory reform, and he signed the pledge saying that for 5 years he would not lobby this administration, but he got a waiver, just a little waiver. So much for the 5-year restriction. Anybody who wants to leave the Trump administration just goes and gets a waiver, and they go right back to lobbying for him. So the revolving door is spinning faster and faster. But how about the President saying no one should benefit from this kind of public service. Well, Elijah Cummings and I have raised concerns about the lease of the Trump Hotel here, which says specifically that no government official shall benefit. No elected official of the United States of America shall benefit from this lease. But President Trump says that that is not a problem, and the new temporary appointee of head of the GSA says it is not a problem. He is not benefiting. The money is going into trust, and the trust can only use the money to improve the properties or pay down the debt. So, therefore, he doesn't benefit. Huh? But then we had a really kind of strange incident this week where the State Department posted ads for Mar-a-Lago on an official government website, ostensibly because they just wanted to show people the winter White House. Of course, they, you know, were showing the rooms and all that. I don't think they had the rates posted. You still had to call. They took it down after people complained about it. So we are not doing so good on the drain the swamp stuff. But I want to help the President here. I introduced a bill at the beginning of this Congress, the DRAIN the SWAMP Act. Maybe he doesn't know these things are going on. Maybe he doesn't know this guy Peacock got a waiver. Maybe he doesn't know that these people were lobbying these agencies, and he really does want to drain the swamp. So I am hoping he will endorse a bill I have introduced, the DRAIN the SWAMP Act, which--instead of having a signed agreement, which can be waived by some random bureaucrat at the White House in secret--would actually put into statute a 5-year ban on returning to lobbying after you have been a high-level political appointee in this or any future administration. Now, that would really drain the swamp. So the question is: Is the President just going to pretend the swamp doesn't exist anymore, or would he like to put some teeth in a law that would actually help us drain the swamp and stop this pernicious revolving door and influence peddling that he was so offended by as a candidate but seems to be turning a blind eye to as President of the United States?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1117 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to submit a report on how it will improve field staff transition. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania has explained, there has been a good deal of confusion with high turnover, repetitive and lost paperwork, and inconsistent guidance. FEMA has implemented several new technologies to manage its full-time employees, but they have not made similar efforts for field and temporary disaster response personnel. It is time for FEMA to do so. This bill requires FEMA to submit a report on how it plans to address the disaster workforce issues, their continuing inconsistent guidance, and keeping appropriate records. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.