Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as I reflect on where this country has been in the last 10 years, I see two wars fought at the cost of thousands of lives and $2 to $3 trillion; tax cuts during a time of war--something unprecedented in this country's history--and now we're seeing more of the same: a Republican budget that would increase spending on defense, despite the fact that we spend more than every other country combined on defense, and would provide tax cuts to the very wealthiest in this country. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that millionaires will see $150,000 in tax cuts with this budget.

So who pays? Anybody who relies on medical research for a cure or to stay healthy will pay. Our education will pay. Pell Grants and Head Start for poor children to get educated will be gutted. Medicare will pay. Medicaid will pay. In my district where highways and railways are critical, investment in those things will be gutted. We all pay if this budget becomes law. I urge--implore--my colleagues to reject the Republican budget.

Madam Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to be participating in the management of this debate today and want to start by thanking Chairman Bachus and thanking my friends on the other side of the aisle for the bipartisan and collaborative spirit with which we moved this legislation.

This is important legislation, but the process by which it moved, I think, is something that we should celebrate. This is a time, of course, when the American people are none too happy with us; but this bill was done collaboratively with the support of the President of the United States, the majority and the minority in the House; and it will be good for our economy. So I thank the chairman for his leadership on this, the ranking member, and all who participated in the creation of this important legislation.

As the chairman said, this is good stuff. It has received the support of entrepreneurs, of industry associations, and of people on both sides of the aisle because it does something very, very important, which is acknowledge that regulation is always a balance. It's not always good; it's not always bad. And one of the duties of legislators and regulators is to make sure that our regulation is finely calibrated to protect us, to protect us from fraud, to protect us from mortgages that blow up, to keep our air clean, to keep our water clean. But if it's done in too ham-handed a fashion, it can compromise the vibrancy that provides so much economic opportunity in this country. Every day this institution should be focused on finding that balance, and that's what this bill is about.

It's been criticized here and there by people who I think are of the mindset that any retreat, any revisiting, any amendment to our current regulatory structure is a bad idea. That can't be the right way to think about this stuff. Regulation, like anything else, has to adapt to change with the times. And what we're doing here is particularly important because we are talking about the regulation of small banks which, let's face it, have a tough time competing against the big banks.

And it's about our start-up and emerging-growth companies that may not have the free cash flow in their first couple of years of existence to completely adopt all of the regulation, the disclosure that we might expect of a multibillion-dollar corporation. We have provided an onramp for entrepreneurs as they gain currency, as they increase their revenues, as they become more of a presence--and frankly, therefore, affect the lives of more people--to gradually work into the full regulatory structures of Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulation. And that's a good thing to do.

Today in Palo Alto, there are companies that might not have made it but for this legislation. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, there are start-up companies for which this legislation is going to make the difference between thriving, as the chairman said--maybe being the next Microsoft or the next

Google--and actually not making it. So I'm very happy that we have, in a bipartisan fashion, put forward this legislation which will be good for economic vibrancy and opportunity in this country. Again, I thank the chairman for his collaborative and thoughtful work on this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my friend, Mr. Schweikert, with whom I've enjoyed working on this legislation and in a spirit of bipartisanship; ultimately a bill that was designed to make it easier for small banks, which Congressman Schweikert and I worked together.

I would also like to highlight the work of Congressman Steve Womack of Arkansas on that bill. It found its way into this legislation under another Congressman's name, but it is important and good legislation, and I continue to support it and am thrilled that it's part of this.

Madam Speaker, I would just take issue with one thing that my good friend from Arizona said. The crowdfunding provisions in this legislation should be subject to scrutiny and to careful regulatory oversight. When you combine the concept of the Internet and retail investors into one piece of legislation, be careful.

The Senate amendment to the House crowdfunding provisions in fact adds more protection to small investors who might be subject to being fooled by an Internet predator. And I would just say we should be careful.

We should be careful when we are talking about retail investors, the classic widows and orphans out there that are not necessarily financially sophisticated. They are not the big financial players who get labeled accredited investors or institutional investors and who, frankly, have the capability to take care of themselves. Retail investors who might be subject to the temptations of a deal that in fact is too good to be true offered on the Internet ought to be a cause of concern both for this body and for the regulators who ultimately will write the rules around crowdfunding.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and thank my friend from Tennessee for his hard work on this bill of which, as I said in my previous statement, I'm very supportive.

I do want to take the opportunity, though, having heard from the gentleman from Tennessee phrases that we hear all too often--phrases like ``one-size-fits-all regulation'' and ``bound up in redtape''--I do want to take this opportunity to remind the American people that those are phrases that sound scary: ``regulation,'' ``redtape,'' and ``one size fits all.'' But what we're talking about here is protection for the American people.

In my previous statement, I made the point that we have to get the balance right; but like everybody else in this Chamber, I woke up a couple of years ago to learn that 11 men were dead on a deep-sea drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico and an ocean was poisoned, devastating the economy of the gulf. We've all seen what happens when you sell exploding mortgages to people who can't possibly repay them, even though the people who sold those mortgages know that. I come from a district which actually has some of the poorest air quality in the country.

Why do I enumerate these things? Because they are all a failure to regulate to provide a safe and good environment in which we can thrive. Nobody wants to see 11 men die on a deep-sea drilling platform. Nobody wants to see a return to the notion that anybody should buy an interest-only, reverse-amortizing mortgage that the bankers don't understand.

So I said it before, I'll say it again: the balance is key. And I will oppose those who say that more regulation is always the right idea, but I will also stand up, as I have now, and say there is a balance. And the other side needs to recognize that that balance does not come from opposing and labeling ``redtape'' and ``obstructionism'' and ``one size fits all.''

I yield to my friend from Alabama.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I salute Mr. McHenry, my friend from North Carolina, for his work on this bill.

I think it's probably worth talking a bit more about crowdfunding. I appreciate the chairman's point of view, but let's be clear here that we are talking about marketing done at retail investors, up to $10,000 more.

Mr. McHenry called the Senate activity ill-conceived and burdensome. We are at the nexus here of potentially unsophisticated investors and people who see an opportunity.

I would remind Mr. McHenry in citing a charitable background for this bill, when you give to a charity, you know you're not getting your money back. When you invest in a company, you hope you're getting your money back. And we should be vigilant that that, in fact, occurs.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, let me again reiterate my thanks to Chairman Bachus and to all of the members of the Financial Services Committee who worked hard on this bill.

I think we've had a lot of good debate around very real and important issues. Unusual for this institution is that we've actually managed to keep the ideology and the barbs out of it. I'm very appreciative of that, and I know that the American people are as well.

I appreciate coming, as I do, from a district and a State that will rise or fall on our ability to innovate, to grow small businesses into real world leaders, and to have a financial services sector which is vibrant and innovative, but safe.

I very much appreciate the intent of this legislation. We had good support from both sides of the aisle. The President is supportive. We heard from industry associations that this was a good thing.

With that, I encourage all of the Members of this body to support this legislation.

I thank again the chairman and the ranking member of the committee and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Cystic fibrosis is not a disease that affects a lot of Americans; but of the Americans it does affect, it compromises and, all too often, prematurely ends their lives.

I had the good and great fortune to just meet with a number of my constituents, including some young constituents who are with me in the Chamber today, who are very concerned and involved with cystic fibrosis.

We are an enlightened and good society because we invest the money necessary to solve the problems that affect our children, our people. We spend money on cures to eradicate diseases that compromise and end the quality of life for so many of our citizens. So as we do the hard work of getting our budget in order, I ask that this Chamber not erode that good work that we do.

Madam Chair, I rise today very excited about what we are about to do on this floor. As has been said over the course of many hours, we are about to pass legislation that will be good for the core strength of this country, for our entrepreneurs, for our small banks that we trust to provide credit in our communities. This is a good bill.

I'm sorry it has been marred by a couple of things that have been the topic of much discussion today. I'm sorry that the Republican majority has used this debate as an opportunity to promote the canard--not my word, Bruce Bartlett's word, which I think means ``baloney''--that the main problem with our economy today is regulation. Bruce Bartlett, conservative economist and former adviser to President Reagan said:

In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented

by Republicans that allows them to use current economic

problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business

community year in and year out.

We have an obligation to make sure that our regulation is good, that it keeps us safe, that it keeps our air clean, that it keeps our banks alive without quashing the entrepreneurship and economic vitality. We should do that every day.

But what we have heard, the ideology, this notion that regulation is the problem in our economy is just what Bruce Bartlett called it, a canard.

And I'm sorry that this bill has been spoiled by the antics of the Republican majority. I'm thrilled that this bill includes H.R. 1965.

At the end of the day--I mentioned Reagan--Reagan said you'd get a lot done in Washington, DC, if you didn't care who gets the credit. There may be only one way to spell ``potato,'' but there are a lot of ways to skin a cat. And if we're going to skin this cat this way, I'm okay with that, because small banks need the flexibility to go public when they should go public; because we should, for those companies that want to go public, provide them with some relief from the regulations that might be more appropriate for larger companies. All of these things, though we have passed many of these measures on the floor, are important.

And so, marred though it has been by the antics of the Republican majority, this is fundamentally a bipartisan, good bill, and it is a rare step forward for this House of Representatives, something that I think will cause every American to say they can get something done. And for that I'm grateful and urge the passage of this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment is very simple. This bill that we are discussing today creates what we have come to describe as the IPO on- ramp, which, for emerging growth companies, would lift some of the more burdensome requirements that are perhaps more appropriate for larger, more established companies.

Now, the question naturally arises, how should we define an emerging growth company? Currently, the bill specifies that a company with revenues at or in excess of $1 billion would not qualify, meaning revenues less than that, and you could qualify to be an emerging growth company.

My amendment, Mr. Chairman, and my belief is that this is far too expansive a definition of emerging growth companies. It's not just my belief. We heard in the hearing which we held on this bill from Mr. LeBlanc that something more like $250 million to $500 million in revenues would be appropriate. I offered in committee the notion similar to this amendment that we make the cap $750 million in revenues.

The Council of Institutional Investors has sent a letter to our leadership expressing the same concern about the billion dollar revenue number. And I would just read from that letter and quote:

We note that some of the most knowledgeable and active

advocates for small business capital formation have in the

past agreed that a company with more than $250 million of

public float generally has the resources and infrastructure

to comply with existing U.S. security regulations.

It's hard to know--a billion dollars in revenue is an abstraction. Let me give you an example.

I have a list of the IPOs that have occurred in the last couple of years. Currently, what I think of as a fine company, Spirit Airlines, with some $800 million in revenues, would qualify as an emerging growth company. They went public in May of 2011.

Spirit Airlines is an established airline with 2,400 employees. They clearly are a company that has the capability to comply with the full array of protections that are there for investors and others. And I would note that the letter that I read from, of course, is from the association that is there to advocate on behalf of our investors.

So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is common sense. It's supported by the hearing that we had. It's supported by the Council of Institutional Investors. It is common sense, dare I use that phrase, and, therefore, would urge adoption so that we get this definition right.

It's a great bill. It is good that we are making it easier for small and emerging companies to go public and to not bear the full burden of the protections that are out there, but we should get this definition right. We should make sure that this is a benefit that accrues to truly small entrepreneurial emerging companies.

And therefore, I think $750 million in revenue is a more appropriate benchmark and, therefore, I propose this amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, this piece of paper will never be the same. No matter how much you try, you can't remove the marks that are left behind. The paper may not have ripped, but once the damage is done, the scars remain.

I saw this idea on the Web site of a new organization formed in Ridgefield, Connecticut, Students Against Internet Discrimination, or SAID. SAID formed in response to anonymous bullies at Ridgefield High School who

were using Twitter to attack other kids from behind a wall of anonymity.

Cyberbullying, kids using the Internet to intimidate, defame, or attack other kids, is a growing problem.

Sophie Needleman, a senior at Ridgefield High, decided to create an outlet online for the legions of supportive, helpful, and decent students to speak out and speak up. With a few friends, she started a Facebook group for Ridgefield students to counter the actions of the bullies. Within 48 hours, it had 1,000 concerned students and adults who wanted to show that bullying has no place in our schools.

I commend the students behind Students Against Internet Discrimination and the entire community of support behind this growing movement.

For every bully out there, there are hundreds of adults and other students who will support this effort and offer help. Seek out a group like SAID and join the effort to stop the despicable practice of cyberbullying.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to offer my support for the STOCK Act, a bill that would make it illegal for Members of Congress to trade securities on inside information, a restriction that applies to pretty much everybody else. I'm a proud cosponsor of that act, but only partly proud. I'm, frankly, embarrassed that legislation is necessary to prohibit insider trading by all of us.

I urge the Republican leadership to bring that bill to the floor now. Don't make us go through petitions and this and that and the other thing. Let's bring it to the floor now. And I urge the other body, the United States Senate, to move it now. My understanding is that Senators are attaching constitutional amendments and other irrelevant provisions to a bill that should be a ``no-brainer.''

If we can't get this done, we will have earned the scorn of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, in 9 hours the President will stand on this podium behind me to deliver the State of the Union address. I remember the first time he did that. I sat in this Chamber as one of our colleagues called the new President a liar. And that was not the low mark in the partisanship that has earned this institution its historically low approval ratings by the American public.

We'll be sitting in bipartisan fashion today, and I guess that's good; but let's make it something more than symbolic. Let's think in our responses to this speech what is in this speech that we can find common ground to get done.

I have a suggestion. I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat, northern or southern, rich or poor, you need roads. You need railways, you need a good electrical grid for your economy to flourish. We're going to invest the money in those things at some point to fix them to be world leaders. Why not do it soon? Why not do it soon when it would help our economy and help millions of out-of-work Americans go to work with dignity. Improving our infrastructure is the way to improve our economy.

I thank the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon, as I frequently do in this Chamber, a little incredulous at what it is that I'm hearing. I'm hearing stories about east Texas. I'm hearing about lattes, and I'm hearing that the number one reason American businesses are not hiring is because of regulations. It's baloney. There's not a fact in there.

Here's some facts. I wish I had more time to get into these facts. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which studies this stuff, asked businesses that have been laying people off, why? Regulations was a negligible answer.

I would love to talk about Bruce Bartlett, financial adviser to President Reagan, Republican, who said that the notion that regulation is why this economy is on its back was just plain made up.

If I had more time, I would like to talk about our former colleague, Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who said the House is moving forward with bills that would cripple the regulatory system, but they show how far a party enthralled by its right-most wing is willing to veer from what has long been the mainstream.

I've got deep problems with this crazy idea that we should have Congress sign off on every regulation. But my biggest problem, Mr. Chairman, is that we're standing here today talking about this. I hear endlessly about the uncertainty associated with these regulations. Mr. Chairman, I was shocked to look at my schedule tomorrow to see that the Republican majority is sending me home. And I'm going to talk to people in Connecticut tomorrow who are uncertain if after next month they're going to have unemployment insurance available to them because they don't have a job and they don't have money. And they may not have food on their table.

Small businesses and an awful lot of Americans with jobs in my district are uncertain about whether they will see an extension of the payroll tax that we passed in bipartisan fashion.

Except we're here talking about this, a fraudulent idea followed by a terrible legislative proposal, instead of dealing with the imminent expiration of unemployment insurance and payroll tax. Let's talk about those things. Let's remove the uncertainty for the people we represent. We represent people who have a lot of uncertainty about whether they'll have unemployment insurance or the payroll tax cut. Let's deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, for the last two years, Alan Gross, a 62-year old international development specialist and social worker, has been incarcerated in a Cuban prison. Today marks the two-year anniversary of his imprisonment. Alan traveled to Cuba on behalf of USAID to help the country's Jewish community expand its access to the Internet and establish an Intranet. This was a humanitarian mission, a mission to help a small and peaceful community improve its access to and use of the Internet. Alan's presence and actions posed no threat to the Cuban government.

And yet, Alan has been held in a maximum-security military hospital facility in Cuba since December 2009. He has been sentenced to 15 years in prison, charged with ``acts to undermine the integrity and independence'' of Cuba. Alan's appeal to the Cuban Supreme Court was denied on August 5, 2011, formally ending his legal options for release.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise and join my colleagues in calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Alan Gross. Alan Gross is not a criminal, he is a humanitarian aid worker. Alan Gross is a man whose life work has positively impacted people across the world, including in the West Bank, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa and Haiti. Alan Gross is a husband, a father and a son who should be released and reunited with his family immediately.

Madam Speaker, 25 million people dead around the world, 14 million orphaned children on the continent of Africa alone. This is part of the toll that the human race has borne since the terrible scourge of HIV/AIDS began its deadly work a generation ago. Tomorrow, December 1, is World AIDS Day.

I rise today to commemorate the millions of brothers, sisters, friends, and children that we've lost to this disease. I rise to commemorate the struggle of the 33 million people around the world who are living with this terrible disease today. And I rise to celebrate the new and real possibility that we could end AIDS in this generation.

Madam Speaker, this government funded the PEPFAR fight which brought hope and health to millions of people around the world, and we have funded the research that allows us to say today that we could end AIDS.

Madam Speaker, as we do the hard work of balancing our budget and governing this country, let's do what we need to do to end this disease and make

sure that future World AIDS Days are all about celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a recent event in the Capitol Visitors Center. Two paintings, ``Discovery of the Hudson River'' and ``Entrance into Monterey'' by Albert Bierstadt, have been placed in the Capitol complex after years in the Members' staircase in the House. These works are part of the Hudson River School of painting, a movement that influenced not only American art, but our culture and environment as well.

The Hudson River School was dedicated to an accurate depiction of landscapes, particularly emphasizing the untouched beauty of the land. Ultimately, these beautifully represented panoramas helped influence the environmental conservation movement and were used in 1916 to support the creation of the National Park Service.

John Frederick Kensett, a member of this first indigenous American school of painting, has ties to my district. Born in Connecticut, John Frederick Kensett worked as an engraver before traveling to Europe and the American West to study and paint. However, he is best known for the works he did upon his return to my state. The light-filled landscapes of the coast of Contentment Island became Kensett's signature.

Kensett's contributions to both art and culture are lasting. He was chosen by President Buchanan to serve on the only United States Capitol Art Commission to supervise the decorations of this very building during renovations in 1859. He also assisted with the foundation of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, which continues to be one of the most prominent cultural institutions in the United States. Inspired by the Hudson River School's founder, Thomas Cole, Kensett was commonly seen as Cole's successor as the leader to this important movement.

I encourage everyone to make time to appreciate these paintings and the legacy of the Hudson River School.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the participants of a 3,250 mile race across the United States organized to promote natural health care options. Called The Run, this is the first-ever endurance event organized to raise awareness about naturopathic medicine. The race will conclude tomorrow, Thursday, November 17, at the University of Bridgeport.

Through a four month, ninety city journey, The Run: Moving Natural Medicine Forward has endeavored to promote the causes of natural medicine, including the benefits of sustainable, quality holistic health care and the importance of healthy lifestyle management and health maintenance. By running an average of 30 miles per day, Dr. Dennis Godby and his family have helped bring attention to the urgent need to transform our nation's health.

I wish the best of luck to Dr. Godby, his family and team, and the students and faculty at the University of Bridgeport's School of Naturopathic Medicine as they work to improve the health of our country.

Madam Speaker, under pressure from the American people, the Republican majority in this House is running around with 15 or 20 bills that they claim to be jobs bills which, of course, they are not. If you look at them, you will see that they are bills that allow polluters to dirty our waters and to fill our air with toxins.

Now, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which actually studies this stuff, asks employers, Why are you not hiring? Why have you gotten rid of people? Nowhere in those answers do we hear the words ``too much regulation.'' It's a canard. Bruce Bartlett, conservative economist and member of the Reagan administration, said that the Republican Party is taking advantage of the need for jobs to push a deregulatory agenda.

It is time to get serious about jobs and not try to fool the American people that filling our water with toxins and making our air polluted is somehow good for this country or good for jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to address the persuasive and life-threatening challenges posed by domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, as many as one in four women over the course of her lifetime will experience domestic violence. This is a crime that knows no geographical boundaries, a crime which knows no class boundaries, and a crime which does not come to the family from without but comes from within and transcends generations as children are scared and then replicate the behavior that unfortunately they saw in their families.

Mr. Speaker, around the United States and certainly in Connecticut. We've got wonderful organizations like the YWCA of Greenwich, the Center for Women and Families of Eastern Fairfield County, and the Domestic Violence Crisis Centers in Stamford and Norwalk doing wonderful work providing safety and comfort to victims of these crimes.

We should support those organizations, Mr. Speaker. But each and every one of us as fathers, as brothers, as community leaders, as Members of Congress should stand up and say we will put an end to this terribly destructive force.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 4, 2011, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 831 on H.R. 3321. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''