Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on January 23, 2019, I was unable to be present for the vote on the motion to recommit on H.R. 648, offered by Rep. Granger of Texas. Had I been present for roll call No. 48, I would have voted ``NAY.''

I was also unable to be present for the vote on passage of H.R. 648, offered by Rep. Lowey of New York. Had I been present for roll call No. 49, I would have voted ``AYE.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the University of Bridgeport women's soccer team following their 2018 NCAA Division II Championship win.

After a successful season, including winning the East Coast Conference Championship tournament, the team made history with their first NCAA Division II National Championship appearance. The team was seeded third in the tournament and defeated the number one ranked team, the previously undefeated Grand Valley State University. The 1-0 win came after a previous 6-0 loss to Grand Valley State in September, showing the true growth and determination that the team embodied.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in recognizing everyone who made this championship win a reality; the coaches, Magnus Nilerud, Jack Abelson, Jonathan Macadam, and Andre Lindsay who devoted countless hours developing these athletes into the winning team they became; and the players--Jennifer Wendelius, Mikayla Duhaime, Rebecca Niblett, Annie Bjork, Shyla Murray, Amanda Ebbesson, Sara Berglund, Rebekka Skaasheim, Nara DaCosta, Maegen Doyle, Carolina Rico, Alyssa Samson, Andrea Jozefczyk, Baylee Houston, Anisha Hill, Cailin Alcock, Eleonore Freby, Lara Heather, Karin Oberg, Eva Maria Becerra, Abigail Befford, Elin Eklund, Anne-Marie Fjeld, Andrea Basilicato, Valentina Florez, Sloane Hugges, Manu Costa, Marieke Kramer, Karoline Vieira, and Annelise Jennings--who represent the University of Bridgeport with pride.

Mr. Speaker, on January 24, 2019, I was unable to be present for the vote on the motion to recommit on H.J. Res. 31, offered by Rep. Granger of Texas. Had I been present for roll call No. 50, I would have voted ``nay.''

I was also unable to be present for the vote on passage of H.J. Res. 31, offered by Rep. Lowey of New York. Had I been present for roll call No. 51, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, so here we are together in the House of Representatives on day 33 of the government shutdown. We have all been back in our districts, and like me, I suspect have all heard from people who are really starting to suffer as a result of this government shutdown: TSA agents, other people essential to our security, other Federal workers, and people who receive food stamps who are wondering whether 2 weeks from now they will be able to feed their children.

I don't know about you, but I come back to Washington thinking one thing, which is: We need to stop calling this a government shutdown. That sort of makes it sound like a machine isn't working somewhere. Let's call this what it is. The President's decision to sign no budget until he gets his wall is not a government shutdown.

It is taking the happiness, the prosperity, and the opportunity of millions of Americans hostage until he gets his wall. It is not too strong to say that this is torturing millions of Americans with anxiety until the President gets his wall.

It is saying to Americans that you will work for weeks, and maybe months, but we won't pay you because he needs his wall. If you are one of the millions of Americans who rely on SNAP benefits so that you can look at your child and know that that child has had nourishment that day, you may not get those benefits because he needs his wall.

If you are a contractor, you are not getting any back pay, and I am sorry, because he needs his wall.

I have got the stories from my district that everybody else does in this Chamber. The worst one was when I talked to a woman named Debbie. Debbie is fighting stage IV melanoma. Her husband is a Department of Transportation executive who was called back to D.C. to work without pay, leaving Debbie to raise three children and battle cancer without pay, with the insecurity of whether she will be able to pay her copays to keep herself alive.

Why? Apparently, holding hostage the American people is okay because the President's wall is that important. Well, if that is so important, why, when the Republicans controlled the House, and the Senate, and Presidency until a few weeks ago, why did we not hear about the wall then? Why are we torturing the American people now?

I have been here for 10 years. We haven't ever had a debate or an argument about a wall, but now it is okay for the President to torture the American people, to keep them without money, to keep them in insecurity, to keep them in anxiety, because right now the wall is absolutely essential.

Let's talk for a second about where this came from and what kind of a tool

this hostage taking is. Remember, during the campaign the President said, we will build a wall from sea to shining sea, a big beautiful wall that will be paid for by Mexico.

What we are doing right now is not delivering on the campaign promise of the President of the United States. We are cleaning up around the fact that he could not deliver on a campaign promise to have Mexico pay for the wall. Instead, security workers and the American people are being asked not just to pay for his wall, but to suffer for his wall.

This is a dealmaker. The art of the deal. I was in the majority once when we had the Senate, and Presidency, and the House. There was lots of stuff we wanted but we couldn't get done. A public option in the Affordable Care Act, we couldn't get that done. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, we couldn't get that done. Something to address climate change, we couldn't get that done. But we never dreamed that the tool that we had in our pocket was to say we will torture the American people unless we get what we want.

I would remind my Republican colleagues that there will be a Democratic President someday, and they are setting this precedent. Set this precedent because it is an awesome tool. Maybe we will decide not to pay the military until we can get truly universal health coverage. Maybe we will decide not to man the borders or to decriminalize marijuana because that is what we want, and we won't pay people until we get what we want. It is a terrible precedent, and my Republican friends know that.

So what do we do now? There are two things that can happen. The President can maybe turn off ``FOX News'' long enough to see that this is hurting his politics very badly. He could maybe experience some empathy; something that I am not holding my breath for. Or maybe, Congress could act like Congress and say we are a coequal branch and we stand for the people who we are currently torturing.

The Senate majority leader said, I will not move a bill that the President will not sign. Think about that. The United States Senate, the greatest deliberative body on the planet is, by design now, a rubber stamp to the President.

It is not hard to override a veto. It just requires us to do what we are paid to do and stand for the American people who are suffering right now.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the advocacy of Chairwoman Waters, but this is fundamentally not a partisan issue, and I appreciate the ranking member making the point. This is a reputational issue, and I want everyone in the Chamber to understand that this is about the reputation of the United States, about the Congress, about the Treasury, and about each individual Member who votes today.

This is a complicated deal. I have spent hours understanding this deal.

But there is a big question that every Member ought to ask themselves: Is this the moment to relax sanctions on a Russian company; on a Russian oligarch?

Is this the moment to sign off on a deal that allows an oligarch to hand his shares to a Russian bank, which is also sanctioned and controlled by the Russian Government?

At the end of this deal, if this deal goes through, Mr. Deripaska will continue to own and vote 35 percent of the shares of this company. Mr. Speaker, you can control the company with 35 percent of the shares. But an additional 28 percent of those shares will be owned and controlled by affiliates of Mr. Deripaska.

Now, Treasury says that doesn't matter because there will be somebody independently voting those shares. I have asked three times now, and Treasury has not told me who those people are.

So what is the rush?

There is no problem in the aluminum markets today. The price of aluminum today is lower than it was before this company was listed. This is reputational.

The architect of this deal, Lord Barker of Battle, is a British peer who has been denied access to classified information in the Parliament and who is under investigation by the Parliament because of possible ties to the Russians.

So I will just close, Mr. Speaker, by making this point: there is no rush. I have become an expert on this deal. Members who vote against this resolution, if Deripaska turns out to be worse than we think he is, if Lord Battle turns out to be worse than we think he is, and if the Russians and Deripaska continue to control this company after this vote, you too will become an expert on this deal, and not in a good way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I want to start by thanking Mr. Takano, Governor-elect Walz, and Dr. Roe for their work on this bill.

As I have sat here and listened to not so much a debate, but a celebration of the bipartisan work that was done to create this bill, including so many things that I know will assist our veterans, it is great to see the parties working together as we close out this Congress.

Mr. Takano was very kind in saying that the SERVE Act, which is included in this legislation, was my idea. It wasn't actually my idea. It was better than that, because it grew out of a conversation I had with a retired marine at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, in which I simply asked Nicholas Quinzi of the Marine Corps, ``What can we do to make your life a little easier?''

And he said, ``You know, the problem I have, like so many of my fellow veterans, I have post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, but there is no way for me, when I go to a landlord to rent an apartment to be here at school, there is no way for me to verify that income, and as a result, I have had a rough time getting housing even though I have got this stipend from the Federal Government which comes to me as a result of my service.''

So there it was: a problem with an easy solution.

The SERVE Act, which is now incorporated into the amendment to S. 2248 will simply require the VA to provide proof of that stipend so that landlords and other housing organizations can see that our veterans have a steady source of income to help them pay that rent. It is a small thing, but it is something that matters an awful lot to Nicholas Quinzi and the roughly 1.1 million other veterans who are getting this kind of benefit.

So this is an example of what happens when you listen to your constituents. It wasn't my idea, but I am just so thrilled that Republicans and Democrats were able to come together around this small, good thing for a lot of young veterans who are post-service, trying to get educated, trying to get the kind of tools they will need to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Roe for his hard work. I thank Tim Walz and wish him well as he goes off to other things. And to Chairman-elect Takano, I thank him for his good work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Anthony Crisci for his leadership in the LGBTQ+ community of Fairfield County. After five years, Anthony will be stepping down as the Triangle Community Center's (TCC) Executive Director.

Starting in 2013 as TCC's first full-time staff member, Anthony breathed new life into the organization, carrying a fresh perspective and boundless energy. Under Anthony's guidance, TCC's budget increased eight-fold and its staff quintupled, enabling it to expand its core mission to include case assistance, regular programming and educational initiatives for over 300 individuals. As a community leader, Anthony has also prioritized cultivating LGBTQ+ pride in our state. He worked to revive Pride in the Park, Connecticut's largest pride march, where thousands of individuals from around the region gather to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community's accomplishments.

Through his dedication and advocacy, Anthony has worked tirelessly to ensure LGBTQ+ individuals feel welcome in Fairfield County, that their civil rights are upheld, and that their contributions to the community are celebrated. Anthony is a passionate advocate for equality, a pillar of the community, and I'm proud to call him my friend.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to represent Anthony Crisci in the United States Congress. I ask you and our colleagues to join me in commending Anthony for his commitment to the TCC, the LGBTQ+ community, and the continuing effort for equality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John ``Laddie'' Lawrence. For 50 years, Laddie has coached cross country and track at Staples High School in Westport, CT.

Laddie began his career in track by helping found the Staples High School cross country team, and shortly thereafter won the 1964 State Open title in the 400-meter run. Following high school, Laddie attended Southern Arkansas University on full athletic scholarship, where he was the resident assistant for the university's first racially integrated dorm.

After his time at Southern Arkansas, Laddie returned to Westport and within ten years became the head coach of the Staples High School track and cross-country teams. Under his tenure, the Staples Wreckers have been a force to be reckoned with, tallying hundreds of wins that included a streak of 222 dual meet victories and only one loss. I am proud to say that Laddie's many victories and extensive legacy have earned him inductions into the Fairfield County Interscholastic Athletic Conference Hall of Fame in 2002, the Connecticut High School Coaches Association Hall of Fame in 2004 and the National High School Athletic Coaches Hall of Fame in 2015.

In addition to his achievements as a coach, Laddie's influence extends to the thousands of student athletes whom he has coached. He has helped develop many Staples students into NCAA Division I athletes and productive, caring members of our community.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Laddie for his commitment to coaching thousands of athletes, who continue to carry the lessons of determination and fortitude that were instilled in them as runners.

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking Chairman Jeb Hensarling and Ranking Member Maxine Waters for their great work on this bipartisan bill in which we stand up on both sides of the aisle today and urge our colleagues to vote for it.

This has been a gratifying effort to watch around a terribly important purpose, which is trying to do all we can, without damaging the safety and soundness of our financial system, to make sure that young companies, the lifeblood of our economy, the source of opportunity for so many people, are given the opportunity to get started to pick up momentum and ultimately to provide the products and jobs that so benefit our communities.

I am standing today, in particular, to highlight an element of this bill that I

am very grateful was included, which is title 31. Title 31 would call for a study around one of the biggest expenses that young companies that are about to go public face. That is the cost of going public, the cost that is charged in the form of a growth spread and other costs associated with the act of going public.

We want our companies trading on the public markets. It is a good source of capital. It is a good opportunity, in many instances, for investors and retail investors, in particular, to participate.

Growth spreads in this country--that is, the fee for going public-- have been remarkably constant over decades at 7 percent. That is a lot of money. For a $200 million IPO, which is not an atypical size, that is $14 million. That substantially exceeds the estimates that people make about what compliance with regulation costs.

I have seen estimates for the cost of compliance between $1 million and $3 million a year. In a $200 million IPO, $14 million is a huge amount of money at a very sensitive moment in a company's lifecycle.

This study would simply look at it to see if there are things that we could do to make this market more efficient, perhaps achieve better pricing, perhaps make it easier and less costly for more companies to access the public markets.

I stand in support of this bill, and urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 2018, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act (H.R. 5788). Had I been present for Roll Call No. 265, I would have voted ``AYE.''

I was also unable to be present to cast my vote on the THRIVE Act (H.R. 5735). Had I been present for Roll Call No. 266, I would have voted ``NAY.''

Mr. Chair, on June 28, 2018, I inadvertently voted ``nay'' for the vote on the Foster of Illinois Amendment No. 24 to H.R. 6157. I had intended to vote ``aye'' for roll call No. 310.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Courtney

Mr. Speaker, I stand to address this Chamber at the start of this legislative week in a slightly different mode of thinking than I usually do, because as we have become aware in the last couple of days, this country is in the midst of a moral and ethical emergency.

Mr. Speaker, we debate lots of things on this floor, and that is a good thing. We argue about taxes. We argue about our budget. We argue about the best way to take care of our children, regulations, all sorts of things where the debate in this Chamber is constructive, sometimes to a good solution.

What we have become aware of on our southern border is not a debatable thing. It transcends ideology. It transcends political party. It gets to the very moral core of all of us as individuals and at the very thing that makes this country truly exceptional.

We are exceptional for a bunch of reasons. We are a very powerful country. We are a very wealthy country. But there are other powerful and wealthy countries.

What makes this country exceptional is that we stand up for values and morals and ethics. And there is no ethical or moral way to look at an agent of the United States Government removing a small child from the arms of his or her mother and to in any way say that that is a moral act consistent with the values that make this country exceptional.

There is no debate. There is no ideology. There is no deterrent effect that would make that okay.

Since our President is uninterested in doing what we all know he could do, which is to stop this immoral action right now, it is time for the Congress of the United States, the Representatives of the people of the United States, of the good people of the United States, to stand up today and say: That act will not be done in my name.

We should have debates about immigration. We should solve the immigration challenges that face us. But never ever, ever should we go to where we are today where the lives of young children are being used for a deterrent, are being used as legislative leverage.

My colleagues, we have been here before. We interned American citizens of Japanese descent, because at the time in World War II, we thought that they might be a threat.

The President promulgates the notion that immigrants are a threat. To him, immigrants are MS-13. We are all immigrants. This country is great because we are a Nation of immigrants.

So it is time for us to set aside whatever calculations, whatever ideology, whatever arguments might be made around the vexing problem of immigration, and to stop the separation of babies from their parents in our Nation today.

If we don't do that today, we will be complicit. The Representatives of the people will be complicit in a moral act that resonates with the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. And I don't think any Democrat or Republican in this Chamber wants their legacy to be that act.

The President could fix this problem right now. It will take us a little longer, but because it will take us a little longer and because I do believe for all the arguments and dysfunction in this Chamber that we are fundamentally a moral group of people, reflective of the ethical aspect of our constituents and of our country, that this afternoon is the time to come together to stop babies being taken from the arms of their parents in our country and in our name.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kate Murray, a student at Sacred Heart Greenwich for her courage and resolve in the face of adversity at school this year.

Sparked by the Women's March in 2017 and the rise of the ``#MeToo'' movement, women and girls across the country have been using their voices to speak out against injustice and for the causes they're passionate about. Earlier this year, Kate found herself in the middle of a conflict at her school over a sticker supporting Planned Parenthood on her laptop. Her actions, in just her sophomore year, fostered constructive conversations in communities across the country, including at my own dinner table, on issues around students' rights to expression at school and women's reproductive health.

Despite pressure from her teachers, school administrators and the local Catholic Diocese, and even being threatened with expulsion, Kate remained true to her cause. It is my hope that the tenacity and poise that Kate displayed throughout the dispute will serve as an example to any student fighting for their beliefs in or out of a classroom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Trumbull High School's first place finish at Connecticut State University's We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution competition.

Every year, thousands of high school students contend in state and national We the People competitions, in which participants explore and debate the origins and import of our nation's Constitution. Trumbull High School students have long excelled in this competition. Their victory in 2017 marked their seventh consecutive state championship under the leadership of social studies teacher and coach Katie Boland. Overall, Trumbull High School students have won the Connecticut finals 23 times since the school began competing in 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the exceptional academic prowess and intellectual curiosity the 29 Trumbull High School seniors on the team demonstrated in preparing for this competition. They researched the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution and applied their findings to the Constitutional issues of today. While the students have enjoyed a well-earned victory, they are already hard at work preparing for the We the People 2018 National Finals in April.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in recognizing these students-- Lindsay Adams, Natalie Almonacid, Samantha Almonacid, Ethan Bachand, Max Bowen, Emma Butler, Shane Carley, Morgan Carrano, Danielle Cross, Connor Flaherty, Lalith Gannavaram, Sarah Giaquinto, Joseph Guedes, Gillian Kick, Manya Kidambi, Allie Lewis, Julia Luow, Lauren Luow, Stefano Mancini, Derek Marble, Mariam Marino, Mia McKinney, Joshua Merkin, Ishan Negi, Jessica Parillo, Joseph Piccolo, Laura Rosales, Alev Yorulmaz and Larry Zhang. I join the proud Trumbull community in wishing these students the best of luck as they continue to expand their understanding of the Constitution and the role it plays in upholding America's civic life.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4258, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act of 2017, makes several commonsense improvements to HUD's Family Self-Sufficiency program, or FSS, which is the only asset-building program at HUD to help increase economic opportunities for its low-income households.

Anecdotally, Mr. Speaker, when I was a commissioner of a housing authority many years ago, I saw this program in action. It deals with one of the challenges of what happens to a family as their incomes go up and they find it increasingly hard to invest and save because their rents typically go up.

Mr. Speaker, this bill expands the scope of supportive services provided to residents to include GED training, education, and pursuit of a post-secondary degree or certification and training in financial literacy.

The bill also expands the program to include families who live in privately owned properties and ensures that low-

income families can continue to participate in this program as their incomes increase. This is a particularly important improvement since under current law, once a family reaches 50 percent of area median income, they no longer are able to accrue additional savings in their escrow accounts. This bill fixes that issue.

This bill is an important step in the right direction, and I hope we can continue to find ways to expand this very successful program beyond the current 72,000 households it can serve.

I am glad to see that my friend from Wisconsin and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize the success of this voluntary program, and I hope we can work together to find ways to improve it and to give energy to other programs which allow people to lift themselves out of lower income circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was passed out of committee 58-0. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.