Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, well, this amendment is actually quite simple. It says that U.S. taxpayers should not subsidize coal-fired power plants built in other countries.

Under the Obama administration, the Treasury Department issued guidance saying that the United States, through multilateral development banks, would no longer fund or support the construction of such plants in foreign countries. Unfortunately, President Trump has rolled back these efforts, and, in essence, the Trump administration is saying to the American people that American tax dollars should go overseas to subsidize fossil fuels and coal-fired power plants.

I support, as many in this body do on both sides of the aisle, the efforts of multilateral development banks. In fact, the use of America's power in that sense, through entities such as the World Bank, is a great way for us to contribute to development across the globe and use that soft power in a way that potentially keeps us from having to go in a different direction. But we should not be using U.S. dollars on projects that subsidize foreign sources of pollution that contribute to increased carbon in our atmosphere and worsen climate change.

Now, there are some that say that the science is not settled on this question. The people who are saying that, I am not quite sure where they are getting their science. Climate change is real. We really don't need a lot of evidence, even recently, to reinforce the notion that climate change is real. Extreme weather events are real, and they are making that point in ways that no discussion on this floor could ever do. Unfortunately, experts are telling us it is only going to get worse.

Congress should not be encouraging the use of American taxpayer dollars to support coal-fired plants overseas. This amendment takes a stand and says that we will not support these sorts of irresponsible projects.

Here in Congress we continually advocate for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. And for the most part on this floor, we continue to advocate for efforts that will reduce carbon emissions in order to protect the environment, not just for ourselves, but for generations to come.

Using American dollars to support coal plants in developing countries is not responsible. It is not a responsible use of taxpayer dollars. It is not good for our environment.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

I just encourage my colleagues to think about this as an opportunity to stand up for the environment, stand up for responsible use of the American tax dollar, and keep in mind that we work really hard here on this floor to develop policy in this country that does not pass on to future generations a planet that is at greater risk than the one we inherited.

When it comes to the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars going overseas, we ought to be able to clearly say that those dollars should be used in a way that contributes to the development of those nations, but in a way that does not undermine the quality of life across the globe and across the decades and centuries to come.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Congress--and, actually, Congress today-- should act to pass the Dream Act. House Democrats are working to pass a permanent solution to protect 800,000 DREAMers, children who were brought here to the United States by their parents through no fault of their own, many of them as very young children. America is the only country they know. They have registered with the government. They pay their taxes. They make great contributions to our society.

We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to deport these youngsters from the only country they have ever known? Is that the morally right question?

We can argue the economics, and I can argue that it is an economic mistake to lose these individuals, but it is essentially a moral question. If a Member of Congress believes that we should deport 800,000 productive people who only know this country, who were brought here as children, then come to the floor of the House and put that on the record. Vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' but bring up the Dream Act.

This is an important question, and it is the work of Congress, and we should do it now.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member, for yielding time to me and for her leadership and work on this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I support and appreciate my amendment being included in this en bloc amendment. My amendment increases funding for three very important and very successful programs that provide lead prevention resources in support for those already exposed to high levels of lead.

Lead is a dangerous neurotoxin. Its effects can be permanent, especially on very young people and those most vulnerable citizens among us. In fact, according to the medical community, there is no safe level for lead.

As you know, I come from Flint, Michigan, where we have experienced the most significant lead crisis. It is one that we are still working to overcome. Even though that crisis in Flynt is no longer in the headlines, Flint and many other communities are still dealing with issues caused by exposure to lead.

There is no cure to lead exposure. We have to work on prevention and do everything we can to support those like the people in Flint and others across the country who have been exposed so they can grow into healthy and successful adults. This amendment will do just that.

I appreciate the ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, and I share in my colleagues' expression of grief for her loss. I thank Ranking Member Lowey and I thank Chairman Cole for working to include this in the en bloc amendment, and I urge its passing.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that would increase funding for youth employment initiatives by $10 million.

Michigan's unemployment rate is 4.7 percent, but for youth aged 16 to 24, it is more than double that, over 11 percent. Young people face high unemployment, and the lack of opportunity to find meaning in the world of work has implications that go far beyond just those years that they might find meaningful employment.

Investing in those young Americans ensures that they all do better. Providing those important employment

opportunities builds a strong foundation around the concept of hard work, and I know many Members support this effort. We just need to make sure that we find every opportunity that we can to make sure that every young person looking for an opportunity to earn a few dollars learns and, especially, understands the connection between their focus on work and the benefits that they will realize from that not only in terms of their own well-being, but the contributions they can make to their community.

Just last month, I had an opportunity to visit a really great example about how youth employment can make a positive impact in my home community. I visited a community garden run by Greg Gaines, who employs Flint area youth in summer jobs. They learn to grow crops. They learn that hard work pays off. Over time, they see these crops come in that they sell at the local farmers market. Very few of them will work in agriculture, but they come to understand that some patience and some effort and the focus on showing up on time and doing a day's good work literally and figuratively will produce fruits that they can benefit from.

So for 14- to 20-year-old kids in this program, obviously, it will make a difference in terms of the way their lives and their life trajectory goes forward, but it also sets a great example for their peers.

This is just one of those things that we do in the Federal Government that is an investment in our future. It is an investment in the lives of these kids. It pays us back tenfold. We should support it with every dollar we can find, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend's comments. I understand the position he holds, and I do hope that we can work together, eventually, to make sure that this program is more fully funded.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, a champion for this issue and many others.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge my colleagues to join me in this. I think we all know of these individual cases where the life of a young person is changed permanently because of an experience that they had finding meaning in work.

Again, as I said at the outset, my view is we should try to find every way we can to support including as many young people in that experience as possible. This amendment would do that.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment that I have offered to increase funding for the very successful Healthy Start program, adding $24.8 million to match the President's funding request.

The Healthy Start program helps infants start out life with the support they need to grow into successful adults. It provides prenatal care, basic health needs, and promotes positive parenting practices for thousands of children.

It is especially important to the people of my hometown, as I mentioned before, and many other communities trying to work through exposure to high levels of lead, which is a neurotoxin. Of course, we know there is no cure, but the way we treat and the support we provide these youngsters often gives them a chance to overcome these sorts of developmental hurdles. Healthy Start is a critical way to do that by helping infants and their families mitigate the effects of that lead exposure.

Flint's ongoing process brought to light the nationwide issues that we face in drinking water. People are more aware of these issues and the impacts they can have on families. So it is incumbent upon us to do everything we can not just to repair the damage, but to actually help those who are struggling to get through these sorts of developmental challenges.

Healthy Start is a proven program. It does that. It is one of the reasons that I essentially take the same position that President Trump is taking: we should have a greater investment in Healthy Start. I don't often find myself in that position, but in this case, I am willing to assert that on this floor.

Early childhood education gives kids, regardless of their socioeconomic background, a chance. I think it is our duty to give every child a fair chance to succeed. That is what this amendment is intended to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, I would just encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I do appreciate very much my friend from Oklahoma's sincere support for the effort. Let's hope that the amendment passes. If it does not, I do look forward to working with him in order to ensure that every child who could potentially benefit from this program does, in fact, have that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I again urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I offered a similar amendment, which was not made in order but would have had the same effect.

Much discussion has resolved around EPA Region 5, which is the region that I represent, and the important office that has, as part of its responsibility, protection of the Great Lakes, which is one of the most unique ecosystems on the planet, and it is one that deserves and needs full-time protection.

I listened carefully to the chairman's comments, and I agree with them. I think, as my friend from Colorado stated, if there is no question as to whether there is a plan to close these offices, I can tell you that the people that I represent would benefit from the assurance that the body that is responsible for making these decisions has made a clear statement that it is on record that these offices will remain open.

Certainly, administratively, they can do all the consideration they need to do to think about how they want to save money. But it is up to Congress to decide these questions, and Congress should be clear.

And when it comes to the Great Lakes, with all the other cuts that the President has proposed, namely the elimination of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, we need this reassurance.

Mr. Speaker, Congress must act to fix our broken immigration system, including passing legislation to protect DREAMers.

Like many Members of this body, I was deeply disappointed with the President's decision regarding DACA, to take away the promise of possibility that DACA provided young people who were brought to this country as children--many of them just months old--by their parents and have grown up here. They work here. They go to school here. They contribute to the quality, to the greatness of this country.

The one thing I did believe is right that the President said was that Congress ought to act. I have sat here and watched us name post offices, bring back legislation that we have passed in previous Congresses on suspension and brought them to the floor and debated them for hours. We have time in this House to stand up for 800,000 young people and give them hope that they deserve, to show that this country is as great as we say it is.

When the Speaker was elected, he said he would open up the process. Here is my challenge: Bring the Dream Act to the floor of the House of Representatives. If you believe these DREAMers should be deported, then vote ``no,'' but give them a vote on the floor of this House. That is the moral thing to do, and we should do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Michigan DREAMers like Jonathan, who aspires one day to help the SpaceX and NASA space programs.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is quite simple. It would add $100 million to the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which is a really important initiative that supports homeownership, supports housing opportunities for people living in America's communities. It literally puts a roof over the head of many Americans. Thirty-five percent of low-income renters right now are unable to find affordable housing. This is not a time to cut this essential program.

Since 2004, Congress has cut this program in half, cutting over $1 billion. We really need to focus more of our attention in how we create more stable communities, more stable neighborhoods, and housing is essential to that, and the HOME program is essential to housing.

Too many communities, too many cities and towns are struggling to hold themselves together. This is one really tangible way that the Federal Government can help those communities.

I have spoken to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and I know he supports the HOME program. He has agreed to work with me to ensure that the final bill has robust funding for the HOME program, so I greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Diaz-Balart for any remarks that he might have.

Mr. Chairman, I will close. I know the chairman and the ranking member support this. I urge all of my colleagues, when this eventually comes back before us, to support robust funding.

Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment and count on the fact that we will work together to make sure that this program is fully supported.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my amendment, which is included in this en bloc amendment, that would add $20 million for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grants, also better known as SAFER grants. These are critical grants that basically help keep communities safe.

Right now, in my hometown of Flint and in Saginaw, just up the road, we have 48 additional firefighters solely because of these grants. During the recess, I was able to go to these fire stations, sit down especially with the new firefighters that have been hired, and talk to them about what it means for them to serve our community and to see some of the new equipment that they are able to have. This makes our communities safer.

It is particularly special to me because my grandfather was a fire chief. He was actually the first fire chief of Flint Township. I learned about service to community by seeing what he did to protect the community that we grew up in.

This program supports safety in those communities. Without it, our citizens are less safe. I am pleased that this amendment was included in the en bloc amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Hultgren and, as he mentioned, Ranking Member Waters and a number of members of the committee who are supporting this. I, myself, am a cosponsor of the legislation.

This is a bill that is quite simple: it makes a technical correction to Dodd-Frank to address an issue regarding the term of the independent member with insurance expertise on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC. The current term, as Mr. Hultgren indicated, is set to expire on September 30, and it remains unclear as to whether a successor will be confirmed in a timely fashion.

Dodd-Frank does address how to fill a vacancy, pending the appointment of an agency head, but it does not address the question as it relates to the insurance member. As such, this bill would allow the current independent insurance member to remain a voting member of the FSOC for the earlier of either 18 months or the appointment of a successor. Of course, this will ensure that FSOC continues to have a member that can bring important insurance expertise to the discussions and that the entire roster of voting members on the FSOC is complete.

This legislation, I think, is a really good example of the cooperation that we can see across the aisle in order to make commonsense corrections to improve Dodd-Frank. Perhaps this is something that can form the basis of further work.

As my friend, Mr. Hultgren, said, the bill passed the Financial Services Committee by a unanimous 60-0 vote. So I thank him for bringing this bill up. I thank the many Democrats and Republicans who have joined us in cosponsoring this legislation, and I look forward to swift enactment.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, noting the bipartisan nature of this bill, I suppose I ought to learn to quit while we are ahead. This is good legislation. It is common sense. It fixes a problem. It continues the continuity of the FSOC and makes sure we have a full membership of that committee, including insurance representation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, while the Senate is moving forward this week on their deeply flawed and really unpopular healthcare bill, millions of Americans know that they will lose healthcare under TrumpCare. They will face skyrocketing costs, premiums will go up, prescription drug prices will go up.

Republicans need to drop this obsession with repeal and work with Democrats to fix the problems that we know exist in the Affordable Care Act. No law is perfect. At least no law that has ever been written here is perfect.

And the American people, at least the folks I talk to back home, they are exhausted. They are sick of this partisanship. We have some ideas that you might like. You have some ideas that maybe we could accept. We ought to get together and figure out a way to make healthcare work for every American and not obsess about the notion that anything signed by the previous President, by definition, is bad law.

Let us do what the American people sent us here to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 317, calling for the unconditional release of United States citizens held by Iran.

Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with this issue. My constituent, and now my good friend, Amir Hekmati, a Marine veteran, was held by the Iranian regime in Evin Prison for 4\1/2\ brutal years.

Thankfully, after a long struggle with the help of many voices across the country and across the world, including my friends, the ranking member and the chairman of this committee, who both used their good offices to advance the interests of Mr. Hekmati, ultimately he was freed. On January 16, 2016, he came home.

But it is long past time for Iran to release those Americans that they are holding, particularly Mr. Levinson, with whom I became quite familiar and whose family I came to know during the period of time that I sought freedom for Mr. Hekmati. Mr. Levinson's family has endured 10 unspeakable years of anguish trying to bring their father and husband home.

If Iran ever wants to be taken seriously in the global community, it has to stop this practice of taking innocent people as political prisoners, people like Amir Hekmati, people like Mr. Levinson, and those other Americans being held today.

It is also important to note, both for us here in this body, across the country, particularly for those watching in other parts of the world, including Iran, that there are times when we have divisions in this country. There are times when we have divisions in our government, even on the floor of this House of Representatives. This is not one of them. We stand absolutely united as Democrats, as Republicans, as Independents, as Americans, saying to the Iranian Government and speaking through the Iranian people to their government: You cannot take political prisoners and hold them and expect to be taken seriously as a member of the global community.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to send that strong message, to pass this resolution. I thank the sponsors of this resolution. I thank the chair and ranking member for their leadership on this issue now, and particularly at a time when my constituent most needed it, and I pray for the same success for those Americans that are being held now.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is actually quite simple. It would expand the House Wounded Warrior Fellowship Program to ensure that even more wounded veterans have the opportunity to work here in Congress and contribute their talents to our work here.

We need more veterans in public service. This amendment would provide additional opportunities for veterans to continue to serve their country here in the House of Representatives as legislative fellows.

I think we know that these veterans bring a particular perspective and a particular set of experiences unlike anything else we hear, and this perspective should inform the conversations, the discussions, and the deliberations we have on all subjects, but particularly on subjects related to their

experience and their particular perspective. We need these voices especially now more than ever.

We do talk a lot about ways to help veterans transition from their service to the world of work following their time in the military. This would increase the number of veterans that are given the opportunity to, right here, work alongside us and to provide us with their perspective.

This amendment is budget neutral and provides additional opportunities for veterans to help us in our work. I think it is the right thing. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to express my appreciation to Chairman Yoder for his support and for Ranking Member Ryan for their bipartisan support of this effort. It is the right thing to do. It will make a difference in the work that we do and especially will make a difference for those returning wounded warriors to give them a chance to start a career perhaps.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican healthcare plan, TrumpCare, has fallen apart in the Senate, naturally.

After 7 months in office attempting to govern exclusively on their own, Republicans have shown once again that they can't govern. They control the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act is their primary goal and signature achievement. They can't do it. Why? Because the American people get in the way. They said ``no,'' and enough Members of the Senate have responded to that.

But now the Republican plan looks like it is to simply repeal the Affordable Care Act with no replacement. It will take us back to a time where you could have an annual or lifetime cap and could not get insurance if you had a preexisting condition. Thirty-two million people would lose their healthcare coverage overnight.

That is the Republican plan?

We need to work together. We need to come together and fix the problems that we see and not make this such a partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, Senate Republicans continue to push a flawed and harmful healthcare bill, TrumpCare. It fails to address the basic healthcare needs of Americans.

Republicans themselves are deeply divided on the subject. You have Republicans negotiating with Republicans and they can't come to consensus. Democrats, meanwhile, have been willing to work to come to consensus to work together to fix those real issues that we know we have to address in the Affordable Care Act. We have not been given the opportunity.

There has been no transparency in any of this discussion, no hearings, and no public input. The entire process is behind closed doors. Of course, we know why. This is a bill that kicks millions of Americans off of healthcare. Twenty-two million people would lose health insurance. For those lucky enough to get healthcare, they will pay more for less. Their out-of-pocket expenses will go up. If you are 50 to 64, there will be an age tax.

This is a terrible piece of legislation. It ought to be rejected and we ought to work together to fix the problems we have.