Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this 15th day of the government shutdown, a shutdown which has put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, that will have untold damage on what is already a hesitant economic recovery; and I rise as we contemplate the last maybe 24, 36 hours before an event unprecedented in American history: the possibility that, for the first

time in this great Nation's history, we may not pay our bills--we may default on our obligations--with a plea for sanity and a last-minute plea that we set aside the irresponsibility and recklessness that has consumed this Congress for years now, culminating in this moment.

What has it profited anybody? Seventy-four percent of Americans disapprove of the way the Republican majority has handled this. Democrats could not have dreamed of a better plan to cut the ground out from under the Republicans.

This week, the International Monetary Fund met here in Washington, and global leader after global leader stood up and basically said: What has become of the United States? How can you be so irresponsible? How can this one indispensable Nation now be a laughingstock?

My constituents are certainly disturbed. I had a conversation with one of them, a guy I have known for probably 25 years now, and he said: Explain to me what is going on in Washington. The Republicans, Senator Cruz, the House majority are demanding a negotiation.

I said: Yes, they are demanding a negotiation. They are using the shutdown and the debt ceiling as leverage to achieve their goals.

He said: What are those goals?

It started out with a repeal of the Affordable Care Act--that is where Senator Cruz started a couple of weeks ago--and then it moved on to we want Congress to not have its employer contribution; and then it moved on to simply talk to us; and then there was a long list of things--we want the XL pipeline approved; we want the Affordable Care Act delayed for 2 years--a long, long list of policy wishes that the Republicans have said they want in this negotiation.

And my friend says: So what do you get? What do the Democrats get? If you build the XL pipeline--whatever it is--and if you give them five of the things they want, what do you get? Do you get investment in roads and railways and networks?

I said: No, we don't get that.

Do you get a commitment to improve the education of America's children?

No, no, we don't get that.

Do you get something that pretty much most Americans think is a good idea, which is some kind of comprehensive immigration reform?

I said: No, we don't get that.

He said: Well, what do you get? What do you get in this negotiation?

I said: All we get is that the government runs.

Really? The government runs. That is what Democrats get in this negotiation?

Yes.

He said: That is not a negotiation.

I said: That is exactly right. That is not a negotiation. That is something more akin to extortion.

And here we sit, where it is not just the government shutdown which is causing pain to Head Start kids in Bridgeport or fear amongst workers at Sikorsky who are building the Black Hawks that ferry our troops in and out of danger. Here we stand on the cusp of saying to the world that you can no longer rely on the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Folks, I used to work in finance, and there is nothing in finance-- there is no share of stock, there is no bond, there is no income- producing property, there is no asset out there--whose value doesn't rest on the unalterable proposition that the United States Treasury is risk free. But the House majority is saying, first of all, that that may not be true, that maybe a default is not a big problem. Maybe it can be managed. It never happened before, but maybe it can be managed. This bedrock, I like to say in doing finance without the concept of a risk-free rate, is like trying to do physics without gravity. Nobody knows what it means, and we are putting this at risk.

So I plead for sanity, and I point out the fact that there are very real costs. The Macroeconomic Advisers, a research firm, has said that the last couple of years have resulted in 900,000 jobs not being created because of this constant hostage taking, this idea that we are going to run the country by crisis. Almost 1 million American jobs are not there because this Congress has done that.

Colleagues, the American people deserve better. It is time at this moment to come together, to be responsible, and to do right by the country.

Mr. Speaker, when Senator Cruz took to the Senate floor for 21 hours to explain to the American public why the Congress had to shut down the government and breach the debt ceiling in order to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I listened carefully. One of the themes was, make D.C. listen. Make D.C. listen.

We know, from polling, that 70 percent of Americans oppose shutting down the government to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

But I went, on Monday, to listen to a couple of my constituents, Tamika Younger and Carla Carey, of Bridgeport. These are two young mothers who

drop their children at Head Start in Bridgeport every single day so that they can go off to their jobs to make the money to give those children some quality of life.

Thanks to the Republican government shutdown, there is no Head Start in Bridgeport now, and they are scrambling and putting their jobs at risk to find something to do with those children they love.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's make D.C. listen to 70 percent of Americans and to Tamika and to Carla, who have very real problems today.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to follow the rank, partisan remarks of Mrs. Blackburn's, because I wanted to speak this morning on the subject of compromise.

Compromise is not an easy subject to speak on because, of course, we all have it in our minds here that the right thing to do is to lead great ideological battles--to stand unbending by your principles, to stand up for what you think is right--and it is the right thing to do to stand up for what you think is right.

Compromise is a hard thing to discuss because, of course, those on the

fringes, those on the extreme--those who are unbending--will accuse us of not standing by our ideals if we compromise; but the fact is that most, if not all, of the accomplishments in the history of this country that have been achieved by the United States Congress have been achieved through compromise.

Let's talk for a moment about one of the reasons I am happy to represent the State of Connecticut.

The Congress in which Mrs. Blackburn and I serve--the very structure and architecture of that Congress--was formed by something known as the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, when Roger Sherman and a group of people who disagreed on stunning issues of the day--and some of the people who were disagreeing were inviting foreign powers in to stand with them--came together and said, Do you know what? We will have a bicameral legislature--a Senate and a House--that will balance the big States and the small States.

And Roger Sherman's statue is here in the Capitol.

By the way, the capital is here because Madison and Jefferson and others of our Founding Fathers made a compromise in which they said the Federal Government will assume the remaining Revolutionary debt of the States in exchange for putting the capital in the Southern States. Compromise is how we get things done around here.

For those who might challenge my own credentials on compromise, I will point out that I was one of 38 Members of this body--less than 10 percent of the House of Representatives--who voted for the Simpson- Bowles' budget. Everyone else said, No, I am not going to compromise because that's too difficult.

So what about the crossroads at which we find ourselves today--the possibility of a government shutdown that would hurt our economy and certainly hurt an awful lot of Americans and the even more egregious possibility that we would not honor the full faith and credit of the United States Government for the very first time in our 240-year history?

Is this a great national battle between North and South? between Republicans and Democrats?

No, it is not. It is something far more unnecessary and uninspiring.

On one side of this debate, we have got, actually, the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats who say, Let's come together. Let's not bring an unnecessary crisis to our country--a manufactured, artificial crisis. Let's compromise. On the other side, you've got a handful of, maybe, three or four Senators and of maybe 30 or 40 Members of the House of Representatives who are so possessed of the Lord's wisdom--they so embody the tradition of our Founding Fathers--that they will listen to no one, and they will refuse to compromise.

But who are these people?

These are people who believe that the best way today to spur economic growth is to put in place savage cuts that will fire teachers and firefighters and nurses, because that will help--despite all evidence to the contrary. These are people who believe that the storms and the tornadoes that have ravaged just about every State in this country have absolutely nothing to do with climate change--despite all evidence to the contrary. These are people who believe that ObamaCare today is doing great damage to this Nation--despite all evidence to the contrary. These are people who don't believe that the President of the United States was born in this country--despite all evidence to the contrary.

So much could get done--comprehensive immigration reform, a budget that looks a little something like the Simpson-Bowles' budget for which I voted. So many things could get done, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio would set aside this small rump group of dead-enders and say, We will govern. We will govern this Nation in the tradition of Roger Sherman, of James Madison, of Thomas Jefferson by listening to the other side, by shutting down the extremes and by thinking about the long-term interests of this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the defeat of this rule and of the underlying bill which will throw millions of Americans off of food stamps at a time when they need it. And I urge that on behalf of my constituent Jenenne Smalls, a 37-year-old formerly homeless veteran with three children who my office helped get on food stamps.

I urge it on behalf of a semi-deity to the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who said, As long as there is one person in the country who is hungry, that is one person too many. And I urge it on behalf of a real deity, Mr. Speaker. Above my head are the words, ``In God we trust.'' In my Christian faith, the notion that we feed the hungry is unimpeachable and nonconditional.

Matthew does not say, Feed the hungry, so long as you can do it with 100 percent efficiency. Mark does not say, Feed the hungry, so long as you pass the XL pipeline. Luke does not say, Feed the hungry, so long as you loosen environmental regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill, which is deeply, deeply flawed, must not pass.

Mr. Speaker, I'm thrilled tonight to join my colleagues in honoring these extraordinary men and women who have been awarded the Medal of Honor.

I rise today to honor the manifest bravery and courage of my constituent, Captain Paul William Bucha of the United States Army, Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Captain Bucha was awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry in action during March 16-19, 1968, in Vietnam. For 3 days, on a mission to seek and destroy enemy positions, Captain Bucha led his 89-man unit through intense combat. On March 18, a North Vietnamese battalion with numerical superiority pinned down the forward units of his company. When Captain Bucha discovered the origins of the heaviest fire, he maneuvered into position and single-handedly eliminated the enemy position. Due to his exceptional leadership and guidance during the 3- day engagement, Captain Bucha's men held their position, refused to yield, and inflicted considerable casualties upon the superior enemy force.

It is for his extraordinary heroism and exemplary leadership that I'm proud to honor and remember the actions of Captain Paul William Bucha.

Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 2013, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 454 on S. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 25, 2013, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 415, 416 nd 417 on H.R. 2218. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote 415, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 416, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 417.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise briefly to engage the chairman and the ranking member in a colloquy.

First, I would like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this bill and in particular for their willingness to hear my concerns regarding the needs of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I think I speak for all of us when I say that a well- funded Army Corps means good jobs and important infrastructure improvements in the regions helped by their projects. Of particular interest to me is the special role that the Army Corps plays in mitigating the impact of floods caused by an increasing number of severe weather events in our communities.

I know that I'm not the only Member in this room whose district was ravaged by Superstorm Sandy as it swept up the east coast last year. Chairman Frelinghuysen's district in New Jersey was also severely affected by the storm. And Sandy is just one example of the magnitude of damage our cities and towns suffer year after year when they are not adequately prepared. With limited resources available after a storm like Sandy, flood mitigation efforts have become more important than ever. An ounce of prevention is, as they say, worth a pound of cure.

Madam Chairman, back in 2010, I was able to secure an authorization for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct flood mitigation studies in my area--studies that would culminate in important recommendations for preventing future flood damage in Fairfield County like that which occurred during Sandy, Irene, and countless other storms in recent years. Unfortunately, with the current backlog at the Corps, it is unlikely that these studies or any other so-called New Start projects will receive the funding they need to move forward as promised and needed years ago.

I know there are dozens, if not hundreds, of projects waiting for Army Corps funding, and I have no delusion that my district is more deserving than others of this funding. But perhaps it is time to reevaluate the necessity of these older projects, re-prioritizing the projects that are still necessary and those that are most urgent. We must find a way to begin new projects and ensure our cities and towns are prepared for the next big storm.

I would ask the chairman and ranking member whether this ban on New Start projects is something that merits further consideration, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I look forward to working with the chairman as well.

I yield now to the ranking member, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I thank the ranking member and look forward to working with her on this as well, and yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

Mr. Speaker, this morning in striking down the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court stood for an idea that permeates this institution: that regardless of who you are, the color of your skin, or whom you choose to love, the United States will not discriminate against you.

Unfortunately, yesterday the Supreme Court went in exactly the wrong direction on an even more fundamental issue: that those of us who serve here, our laws, our President, our Members of Congress, are elected by the people of the United States in a truly equal fashion.

We acknowledge that progress has been made in those regions that historically discriminated against minorities, but we also acknowledge that the problem is still there. Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion has example after example of discrimination. For example, in 2004, Waller County, Texas, threatened to prosecute two black students after they announced their intention to run for office.

Mr. Speaker, business should cease on this floor until we take up the Supreme Court's challenge to modernize and reinstitute the heart of the Voting Rights Act so that we can all look each other in the eye and say, We are here because the American people, all of them, elected us.

Mr. Speaker, the American people need to understand what's happening on the floor of the House this week with respect to the farm bill. Now, it's a complicated thing with agricultural subsidies, commodity treatments, and food stamps. And here's where the American public needs to pay attention, because the Republican majority in this Chamber is using unprecedented and massive cuts to food stamps to get an agriculture bill passed.

What are food stamps?

Food stamps are about $4.50 a day to hungry children and to vulnerable seniors.

I'm not going to dignify this amoral effort with a counterargument. I'm just going to observe that I'm standing under 4 words: ``In God we trust.''

I'm going to observe that the minister this morning opened the House with a prayer to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and I will say two things:

Proverbs 22:9: Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed,

for he shares his bread with the poor.

Matthew 25:37: Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed

you or thirsty and give you drink? And the King will answer

them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to the least of

these my brothers, you did it to me.

Thank you, Madam Ranking Member, and thank you for your leadership of our side on this committee.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1062.

I find it curious that Chairman Hensarling, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, frames this legislation in the context of the huge impact that financial regulation is supposedly having on jobs in his district and on jobs in this country.

I've read all of the economic reports from the Federal Reserve to economists on the left and the right, and not one of them says that our economy is recovering slowly because of financial regulation. They talk about the austerity. They talk about the sequester as meaningfully reducing the number of jobs in this country. By the way, they're policies that Chairman Hensarling's party has supported from moment one. They talk about Europe. They talk about housing. They talk about inadequate demand. Nobody says that financial regulation is materially impeding our recovery.

Curious that that's on the table.

Curious also that 2 days ago this House passes legislation to demand the SEC to speed up its rule writing on the JOBS Act, and today we are here to pass a measure that would actually slow down the SEC.

Curious. Why is that?

Curious that the other side, my friends in the Republican Party, have consistently sought to underfund the SEC at the very moment in history when we have added dramatically to their purview--the derivatives market, the mortgage market--that they now must regulate. Yet, in 2011, when they were first to assume these responsibilities, the Republicans sought to cut the SEC budget by $300 million against what was ultimately paid for.

So what is really happening? If I may quote the chairman, what is this really about? None of that makes sense.

What this is really about is an ongoing ideological effort to tie the regulatory agencies up by cutting their budgets, by refusing to confirm their leadership, by imposing litigation hurdles and cost-benefit analyses ad nauseam such that they cannot do their job; and if they can't do their job, this country loses jobs.

Mr. Speaker, it is the fashion amongst many of us to blame the press for our troubles, and that's, of course, because the press reports our troubles. At their best, the media keeps us honest, it keeps us in our constitutional lanes, and it reports our failures. It is essential for democracy. There is a reason why freedom of the press is not the Second or Fourth or 10th Amendment. It's the First Amendment.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly concerned over the Department of Justice's overbroad and chilling behavior with respect to the Associated Press. Seeking records for 20 phone lines, giving the AP no notice, refusing at this point to discuss their behavior feels to me like overreach.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for the Department of Justice to stand back. You can imagine that there is somebody out there today who has a failure to report who is chilled and says, I will not do that because of the approach that the Department of Justice has taken.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve in the very core of democracy, but this Chamber rests on foundations, and a key part of that foundation is a free and competent press.

Mr. Speaker, last week was a profoundly disturbing week for those of us from Connecticut and for Americans as a whole. When this body, when the institution of Congress failed to do anything to promote gun safety in the face of the tragedy at Newtown, this institution let the American people down.

When a Senator on the Republican side with an ``A'' rating from the NRA and a Senator from the Democratic side with an ``A'' rating from the NRA put forward a background check measure that fails, we fail.

Look, we can and we should debate what kind of weapons Americans should have a right to. We can and we should debate how many bullets can go into a magazine. There is no principled argument for why we should not check out someone who wants to buy a weapon. And yet, we couldn't make that argument in the Congress of the United States.

So as a result, some time soon, a terrorist will buy a gun at a gun show. Some time soon, a violent felon will buy a gun online. And as a result, Americans will die. And this institution will bear the blame. This was not a proud moment, Mr. Speaker, for the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, on March 15, I was unable to be present for a series of votes. Had I been present for rollcall vote 73 on H.R. 803, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall vote 74 on H.R. 803, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for rollcall vote 75 on final passage of H.R. 803, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 70 on H.R. 803. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 71 on H.R. 803. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 72 on Approving the Journal. I would have voted ``yea.''