mr. defazio, mr. upton, mr. pallone for their work on this the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr capuano: i'd like to yield two minute toths chairman of the -- the ranking member of the subcommittee on energy and power. mr. rush. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank the ranking member for his fine remarks. i would like to acknowledge some of my colleagues who worked together dill jebtly with my office to draft this bipartisan pipes act that will help to modernize and secure our nation's vast network of energy pipeline infrastructure. specifically, mr. speaker, i must recognize my colleagues from the energy and commerce committee, including chairman upton and ranking member pallone as well as the energy and power subcommittee chairman ed whitfield. additionally, mr. speaker, i would like to acknowledge my colleagues from the t.n.i. committee, including chairman shuster and rak rag -- ranking member the fazio as well as the railroad

mr. defazio. >> thanks. i'll move on quickly to the controller issue but i just want to correct the record mr. babbitt, you can help with this. you served on the '93 commission, that's correct? the '93 commission you served on it, looking at the changing the ato governance? >> i believe that was the '92 commission. >> yeah, you did. >> yes. >> was the conclusion to go to a private corporation, or was the conclusion to establish an independent government corporation? >> i will plead a fair amount of distance between 1992 and today. >> well, i have it here and although ms. row bien and others keep saying we were there, this is what they wanted to do, it actually came to the conclusion it should be an independent government corporation removed from the federal budget process. not a private, not for profit corporation. let's move on to air traffic controllers. ms. bristol, why was this b.a. created? my understanding is the at sat was compromised and that's part of the rationale for the b.a.? >> congressman, i wil

mr. defazio. >> thanks. i'll move on quickly to the controller issue but i just want to correct the record mr. babbitt, you can help with this. you served on the '93 commission, that's correct? the '93 commission you served on it, looking at the changing the ato governance? >> i believe that was the '92 commission. >> yeah, you did. >> yes. >> was the conclusion to go to a private corporation, or was the conclusion to establish an independent government corporation? >> i will plead a fair amount of distance between 1992 and today. >> well, i have it here and although ms. robien and others keep saying we were there, this is what they wanted to do, it actually came to the conclusion it should be an independent government corporation removed from the federal budget process. not a private, not for profit corporation. let's move on to air traffic controllers. ms. bristol, why was this b.a. created? my understanding is the at sat was compromised and that's part of the rationale for the b.a.? >> congressman, i will

mr. defazio. >> thanks. i'll move on quickly to the controller issue but i just want to correct the record mr. babbitt, you can help with this. you served on the '93 commission, that's correct? the '93 commission you served on it, looking at the changing the ato governance? >> i believe that was the '92 commission. >> yeah, you did. >> yes. >> was the conclusion to go to a private corporation, or was the conclusion to establish an independent government corporation? >> i will plead a fair amount of distance between 1992 and today. >> well, i have it here and although ms. row bien and others keep saying we were there, this is what they wanted to do, it actually came to the conclusion it should be an independent government corporation removed from the federal budget process. not a private, not for profit corporation. let's move on to air traffic controllers. ms. bristol, why was this b.a. created? my understanding is the at sat was compromised and that's part of the rationale for the b.a.? >> congressman, i wil

mr. defazio. thank you, mr. chairman. are air traffic controllers are doing a phenomenal job. some of them are being forced into mandatory overtime six-day weeks. that is not attainable and it certainly doesn't help recruitment into some of the busiest areas of the country, particularly new york and others. we have to look at new ways to induce fully qualified controllers to move their and we also have to facilitate the hiring of qualified people in their full certification. there is a legislation and i've spoken to the chairman about this. i'm trying to remember the number introduced by mr. tran 11, which would help in the hiring process, particularly targeting veterans and otherwise fix against controllers to move on and get to work. so i would hope that we would take up that bill. i think it's a noncontroversial bill. as suggestions we are doing a lot of pretend legislation around here on the floor, maybe we should do similar legislation in the bill through before congress embarked on yet anoth

mr. defazio. he hit the nail on the head and i appreciate that. i also want to make sure the record reflects that in my accomplishes, it has everything he wants except it's not in a failed, the history of america's ben failed government operations and it takes out of that and we've seen around the world that the system works at i just want to make sure that stands in the record. >> i think the chairman. so the military training program doesn't suffice? military controllers can't pass your processes and cannot work in the civil. >> no, sir, we are hiring any number of former military controllers. in fact, our most recent track to announcement we did also an announcement with opening continuing last december. the air traffic organization could hire 260. sixty. they are all veterans, all former military. >> why can't, why do they fail? sir, the assessment, like any test, predicts success at the academy. it's not flawless like all other tests. >> so you agree to correct the flaws? >> what we have done is we have done our consultants have done the vali

mr. defazio: if anybody is just tuning in with the speaker having shut off speakers and cameras, he has graced us with lights, thank you. they might have to shut down the whole building, that might be the trip. if people are tuning in, they might wonder, what are these dangerous, radical, revolutionary proposals the democrats want to foist on the american people now? what are they? they must be horrible if the speaker is going to these lengths. universal background checks before you can buy a gun. today we have loopholes big enough to deliver truckloads of guns to people who are legally prohibited from buying guns but they don't have to undergo background checks and they can buy them, take them out and commit crimes and massacring and other things. is that a radical proposal, my friends? unanimous consent. it passed. now. there is one that, i can understand the republicans really have trouble with this. if you are on the terrorist watch list, you're on the terrorist watch list, you can't walk into a gun store and legally buy a gun. really? really, mr. speaker? you're holding up a vote on a bil

mr. defazio: i thank my colleague for yielding. well, those watching or listening might be a little confused. what's this about? it's about a meaningless piece of paper. it's called a house concurrent resolution. number 112. and it's expressing the sense of congress that something that the president proposed is bad and they don't like it. well, he proposed it. they're not going to take it up. why are we wasting time on something they won't put on the schedule and isn't a reality? i don't know. because they're trying to fill up time. not clear to me. what they're doing is continuing to avoid the discussion of how we're going to pay for america's infrastructure. dwight david eisenhower said, let's have a user fee, a gas tax. the last time we increased the 1993, 18.4 rally, cents a gallon. that figured out to about 15% of every gallon you bought. today i pay $2.50 a gallon in oregon last week. federal tax 18.4 cents. that's about seven cents per gallon and those dollars are worth less. they talk about what it's going to do to jobs if