Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass legislation that limits the role of money in politics. Since the Citizens United decision in 2010, the role of fundraising and spending in political campaigns has gotten even more out of control than it was before.

That is why I introduced a constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 24, which allows Congress and the States to rein in campaign contributions. It is also why I cosponsored the DISCLOSE Act, the Government By the People Act, and the democracy for all amendment--all designed to limit the influence of money in our political system.

The American people need to know that their elected officials are here to serve them and not big campaign contributors. The overwhelming amount of money spent on campaigns weakens people's faith in our political system.

Mr. Speaker, I urge House leadership to take up legislation to address this issue. We need to change our laws to get money out of politics and to keep our focus where it belongs--doing the right thing for the American people.

Amendment V:

``No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; . . . ''

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position on rollcall votes cast between July 9, 2014 and July 17, 2014.

On rollcall vote No. 371, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. McAllister I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 372, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Hahn I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 373, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Gosar I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 374, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Wenstrup I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 375, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Swalwell I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 376, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Byrne I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 377, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. McClintock I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 378, on consideration of H.R. 803 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 379, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. McClintock I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 380, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Bonamici I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 381, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Speier I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 382, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Titus I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 383, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Schiff I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 384, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Quigley I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 385, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Chabot I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 386, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Titus I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 387, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. DeLauro I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 388, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. King I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 389, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Lankford I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 390, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Cassidy I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 391, on ordering the previous question for H. Res. 661 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 392, on consideration of H. Res. 661 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 393, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Burgess I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 394, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. LaMalfa I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 395, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Stockman I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 396, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Stockman I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 397, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. McKinley I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 398, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Blackburn I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 399, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Gosar I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 400, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Hudson I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 401, on the motion to recommit for H.R. 4923 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 402, on final passage of H.R. 4923 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 403, on the motion to recommit to H.R. 4718 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 404, on final passage of H.R. 4718 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 405, on consideration of H.R. 4195 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 406, on consideration of H.R. 5029 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 407, on ordering the previous question to H. Res. 669 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 408, on passage of H. Res. 669 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 409, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 5016 by Ms. Jackson Lee I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 410, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 5016 by Ms. Moore I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 412, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 5016 by Ms. Waters I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 413, on consideration of the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 5021 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 414, on passage of H.R. 5021 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 428, on ordering the previous question to H. Res. 670 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 429, on passage of H. Res. 670 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 430, on the motion to instruct for H.R. 3230 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 431, on the motion to recommit for H.R. 4719 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 432, on passage of H.R. 4719 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify my vote on final passage of H.R. 4923 and H.R. 5021.

On H.R. 4923 I would have voted for the bill despite concerns about the increase in funding for fossil fuel research at the expense of decreases in funding for renewable energy technologies. Furthermore, I was concerned by a policy rider that would prevent the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers from moving forward with rulemaking to clarify the definition of Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act.

On H.R. 5021 I voted yes because it is critically important that we keep our Highway Trust Fund solvent and transportation projects moving forward. However, I am frustrated that we have not yet been able to achieve a longer-term fix for the Highway Trust Fund. In crafting a new highway reauthorization I urge my colleagues to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure a reliable, dedicated funding source for our highway projects.

Mr. Speaker, if you drive down Interstate 95 in my home State of Delaware right now, you will see license plates from up and down the Northeast corridor that are crawling at a snail's pace. As a result of structural damage, a bridge that carries 90,000 cars a day is closed until after Labor Day.

In Delaware, we are feeling the importance of investing in our Nation's infrastructure firsthand. It is critical for public safety, but it is also important for commerce, tourism, and our quality of life. Just as important, building roads and bridges creates jobs for workers right here in America.

If Congress does nothing, the highway trust fund won't have enough money to pay its bills come the end of the summer. That is the source of money that pays for building and repairing roads and bridges all throughout the country. Finding the funds to fix our Nation's crumbling infrastructure will not be easy, but putting it off is not an option.

I urge my colleagues to find the political will to fund the highway trust fund and ensure that our Nation's infrastructure reflects our 21st century needs.

Madam Chair, let me be clear that I do not support giving any funding to terrorist organizations, including Hamas and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, I voted against Mr. Gosar's amendment because it would have prevented funding for the Palestinian Authority, which is a vital source of humanitarian aid and aid to help resolve the Iraeli-Palestinian conflict. This money also goes toward providing security within the Palestinian territory, which remains in the best interest of our national security.

The amendment also would have barred the use of funds for the ongoing dismantling of chemical weapons in Syria. This effort remains a top priority for American national security and it would have been irresponsible to vote in favor of an amendment that would jeopardize this mission.

While on its surface this amendment may have appeared to implement policy goals I support, I ultimately opposed it because I believe its consequences would have negatively impacted American national security interests.

Mr. Chair, with numerous and significant reservations, I will vote for final passage of H.R. 4870, the FY2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I supported this bill because it provides the means to support the brave men and women of our armed services who put their lives on the line to protect ours. The bill provides a pay raise for our troops and includes important provisions that support the missions of the Delaware National Guard and Dover Air Force Base.

That said, I disagreed with numerous policy provisions included in the bill, most notably the lack of guidance for how the Administration can use funds provided in the Overseas Contingency Operation accounts. I also remain concerned that the bill prevents the Department of Defense from taking responsible measures to cut defense spending and continues to maintain the Authorization for Use of Military Force, despite the fact that our military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq have drawn to a close. I was also concerned that the bill prevents the transfer of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Facility and fails to provide a comprehensive plan to close the facility. I am hopeful these deficiencies in the bill will be addressed when the House and Senate meet in conference to work out their differences.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Men's Health Caucus I am pleased to celebrate National Men's Health Week. This year marks the 20th anniversary of National Men's Health Week, which was started by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1994.

National Men's Health Week was legislation sponsored by Senator Bob Dole and Congressman Bill Richardson and is celebrated each year during the week that ends on Father's Day. Recognizing that many health problems that affect men can be prevented, the week was designed to encourage men, boys and their families to develop positive health habits, engage in preventive behaviors, lead healthy lifestyles, and seek timely medical advice and care. As co-chair of the Congressional Men's Health Caucus, I am proud to celebrate this week and help raise awareness of health issues that affect men, boys, and their families.

I've seen first-hand the importance of health education and awareness for men in particular. As a member of the Delaware Cancer Consortium, a statewide organization dedicated to reducing the impact of cancer in my state, I helped to implement a successful colorectal cancer screening program that dramatically increased screening rates for Delaware men. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer affecting men; however, Delaware's screening program has helped reduce the rate of colorectal cancer by 41 percent among Delawareans and allowed Delaware to become the first state to eliminate disparities in colorectal cancer screening between Caucasian and African American men. But there is still progress to be made. We need to do a better job addressing the disparity in mortality rates of African American men with prostate cancer, providing early screening for lung cancer, and continuing our commitment to research.

As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of National Men's Health Week, we are reminded of how far our country has come in improving the health and well-being of men and boys, but there is still a lot of work left to be done. We also recognize the importance of these efforts as a way of reducing overall health care costs as part of a plan to address the country's fiscal challenges. Mr. Speaker, this week, along with the entire month of June, Men's Health Month, provides an excellent opportunity to focus on ways that we and our loved ones can live healthier, longer lives.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, in lieu of offering my amendment at the desk, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman.

Madam Chairman, I rise to discuss with you the importance of our Nation's fisheries and, in particular, the survey of horseshoe crab populations along the Atlantic coast. The Delaware Bay supports the largest population of horseshoe crabs in the world.

This unique and ancient species is critical to not only the ecology of the Atlantic coast region, but to my State's economy as well.

Horseshoe crab eggs are a critical food source for migrating shore birds. An estimated 450,000 to 1 million of these shore birds visit Delaware Bay each year, along with them come birdwatchers who contribute to Delaware's tourism economy. Horseshoe crabs also provide bait for commercial American eel and conch fisheries along the coast.

Less well known is that horseshoe crabs are used for biomedical applications. Extract of horseshoe crab blood is used to ensure that injectable medications like intravenous drugs, vaccines, and medical devices are free of bacterial contamination.

While there are some indications that horseshoe crabs are thriving in the Delaware Bay, we need additional research about their migratory patterns and prevalence in other parts of the mid-Atlantic region.

Congress has, in the past, provided funding for comprehensive surveys of horseshoe crab populations. The data collected through these surveys allows the Atlantic coastal States to set annual quotas for the Delaware Bay region to protect both horseshoe crabs and migratory shore birds.

For a very small investment, we can generate the research necessary to ensure this critical species remains on a sustainable path.

Although I am withdrawing my amendment, I look forward to continuing to work with the Appropriations Committee on ways to improve funding for the science and data collection needed for surveys of horseshoe crab populations along the Atlantic coast.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I thank the gentleman and look forward to working more with the committee on this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week, when I was back home in my district in Delaware getting a workout at the YMCA in my hometown of Wilmington, a man came up to me as I was on the exercise bike and said: Excuse me, do you mind if I interrupt?

I said: Of course not, I work for you. He said: I wanted to see if you know about the status of H.R. 4414 because I write expatriate health insurance plans

for Cigna, and I don't want to lose my job.

Losing even one job like this in my State keeps me up at night. The prospect of losing 500 jobs is a punch to the gut. That is how many jobs we will lose in my home State of Delaware if we don't pass this bill on the floor today.

I am a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act, so are a lot of people in my State; but no law is perfect, and in a law as important, as complicated, and as technical as the Affordable Care Act, there are bound to be a few things that needed to be fixed.

The ACA was unintentionally written in a way that subjects U.S. expatriate health insurance plans to all the provisions of the ACA, which places a unique burden on these types of plans.

Expatriate health insurance plans offer a high-end, robust coverage to people working outside their home country, giving them access to a global network of health care providers. Individuals on the plan could be foreign employees working here in America, Americans working abroad, or, say, a German working in France.

Expatriate plans ensure that these employees have worldwide access to quality health care while working outside their home country.

Several U.S. health insurance companies--Cigna, MetLife, Aetna, and United Health--offer expatriate health insurance plans. These insurance companies compete with foreign insurance companies that also sell the same kind of plan. The issue is these foreign plans don't have to comply with the ACA.

Forcing U.S. expatriate insurance plans to comply with the ACA thereby gives their foreign competitors a distinct advantage. As a result, to stay competitive, a U.S. expatriate insurer will move their business overseas, taking the jobs with them; and that is why I am here on the floor today.

The good news is that we have bipartisan legislation here today that will level the playing field. In fact, the administration has already provided temporary relief for expatriate plans from nearly every Affordable Care Act provision that has gone into effect so far. The problem is this relief is only partial and only temporary. The administration can't make this relief without this legislative fix.

Our legislation ensures that American expatriate insurance carriers are on a level playing field with their foreign competitors, so that American jobs stay here in America.

Many of you know that this is our second go-round at this legislation. Over the past few weeks, we have worked painstakingly to improve our bill, and we have.

We are confident that our original version of the bill wouldn't have negatively impacted green card holders or create loopholes in the ACA, but we have worked hard over the past few weeks to address the concerns we heard.

We heard concerns the bill would let insurance companies create low- quality plans. Our bill now requires expat plans to meet the same value standard as any other employer-based plan under the ACA, and if the plan doesn't meet that standard, the expat can use subsidies to buy coverage on the exchange, just like any other American.

We heard concerns that the definition of an expat was too broad, that it could be taken advantage of. We changed that definition, tightened it up, and it is identical to the HHS regulations today.

We now make explicit that expat plans must follow all ERISA and Public Health Service Act requirements that were in place before the

So if we don't pass this legislation today, people who have expatriate plans and the companies that offer them will continue to do so. The question is whether they will do so here in the United States and keeping those workers here or whether they will move those operations overseas.

I understand, as well as anyone, that the ACA is a political weapon in a larger political war on both sides of the aisle. All I am asking today is that we take actions so that 500 hard-working Americans in my district don't become collateral damage in that partisan political fight. Let's call a temporary truce in that battle today to protect those jobs.

Finally, I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Nunes, and the Ways and Means staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this issue, and I want to thank leadership on both sides of the aisle for recognizing this is a very serious problem that needs fixing.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support us and vote ``yes'' on this legislation today. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4414.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank him for his hard work on this very serious issue that affects both our States, Delaware and California.

Madam Speaker, in a State of 900,000 people, losing 500 jobs is a serious blow. That is how many jobs we will lose in my home State of Delaware if we don't pass this legislation on the floor today.

I am a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act. So are a lot of people in my State. But no law is perfect, and in a law as important, as complicated, and as technical as the Affordable Care Act, there are bound to be a few things that needed to be fixed.

The Affordable Care Act was unintentionally written in a way that subjects U.S. expatriate health insurance plans to all the provisions of the ACA, which places a unique burden on these types of plans.

Expatriate health insurance plans offer high-end, robust coverage to people working outside their home country, giving them access to global networks of health care providers. Individuals on the plan could be foreign employees working here in America, Americans working abroad, or, for instance, a German working in France.

These employees can be NGO and foreign aid workers, pilots, cruise ship workers, and contractors sent to support our troops on deployment around the globe.

Expatriate plans ensure that these employees have worldwide access to quality health care while working outside their home country.

Several U.S. health insurance companies, Cigna, MetLife, Aetna, and United Health, offer expatriate health insurance plans. The employees who write those policies generally work here in the United States and make up several thousand U.S. jobs, including 500 in my State.

These insurance companies compete with foreign insurance companies that also sell expatriate health insurance plans. The issue is, these foreign plans don't have to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Forcing U.S. expatriate insurance plans to comply with the Affordable Care Act gives their foreign competitors a distinct advantage. It makes plans written in the U.S. more expensive, which gives companies an incentive to purchase foreign-based plans instead.

As a result, it makes more sense for U.S. expatriate insurers to move their business overseas, resulting in a potential loss of a few thousand jobs. In Delaware, that is going to mean 500 jobs. In California, it is 700.

The good news is that we have bipartisan legislation here today that will level the playing field.

The Obama administration has already recognized that it is burdensome and unnecessary to require expatriate insurance plans to comply with the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the administration has provided temporary regulatory relief for expat plans from nearly every Affordable Care Act provision that has gone into effect so far.

The problem is this relief is only partial and only temporary. The administration can't make this relief permanent without a legislative fix.

Our legislation clarifies that the Affordable Care Act does not apply to expatriate health insurance plans. It ensures that American expatriate insurance carriers are on a level playing field with their foreign competitors, so that American jobs stay here in America.

You may hear on the floor today that this bill is about destroying the ACA, or changing our immigration laws, or giving a handout to insurance companies.

But let me assure you, that is not what it is about. It is about jobs, pure and simple.

If we don't pass this legislation today, people who have the expatriate plans, and their companies that offer them, will continue to do so, the same as they are today. The only difference is that the companies will buy these plans from insurance carriers that write the plans from abroad.

That means those insurance jobs will go to foreign workers instead of workers in America. They will go to workers based in Singapore instead of those based in Delaware.

I understand as well as anyone that the Affordable Care Act is a political weapon in a larger political war on both sides of the aisle. But that is not what this bill is about today.

All I am asking today is that we take action so 500 hardworking Americans in my district don't become collateral damage in this partisan political fight. Let's call a temporary truce in that battle today to protect these jobs.

I thank Congressman Nunes and Ways and Means staff for their hard work on these issues, and I want to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for recognizing this as a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4414.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to join my colleagues in opposition to H.R. 1459. This bill will clearly undermine the Antiquities Act, one of our country's most important environmental and historic preservation tools, and one that has been critical to protecting beautiful land in my home State of Delaware.

Currently, Delaware is the only State in the Union without a national park. That means that every summer as families flip through the guidebooks of national parks and search through the Internet for outdoor vacation ideas, Delaware is not on the map, except, of course, for our beautiful beaches. The good news is that, last year, the Antiquities Act helped fix this problem. It allowed for the creation of the First State National Monument, including the historic Woodlawn property, through a process that involved broad public input and public participation.

The Woodlawn property is 1,100 historic acres spanning the border of Delaware and Pennsylvania. It had been privately owned and used for public recreation for over 100 years and was about to be sold, potentially leading to extensive residential development. In response to considerable public outcry about the possible loss of this great property, a private foundation, the Mt. Cuba Center, stepped in with an incredibly generous donation of more than $20 million to protect the property for future generations. Given the various limitations related to the management and transfer of the property, the Antiquities Act provided the right path for us to move quickly with plenty of public input to ensure that the monument effectively represented our community's goals.

As part of this process, we held over a dozen public meetings on the creation of the monument, including a hearing attended by the National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis and hundreds of Delawareans and Pennsylvanians who expressed strong support for the protection of the Woodlawn property. The First State National Monument continues to enjoy virtually unanimous, enthusiastic support from all stakeholders in our community, including colleagues on the other side of the aisle representing districts in Pennsylvania.

The provisions in this bill under consideration today would have jeopardized this process, and we may not have been able to realize the tremendous gift.

I thank the gentleman for the additional time.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, a great outdoorsman, and a lover of nature, said this about the importance of protecting our national treasures. He said:

It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it

is the way in which we use it.

Let's continue our Nation's tradition of protecting our public lands in a way that reflects the greatness of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3448. I would like to thank Mr. Garrett, chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee. Particularly, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) for his good work on this piece of legislation. I certainly enjoyed working with him on it.

I particularly want to applaud Mr. Duffy for his willingness to address concerns raised by stakeholders, members of the committee, and those we heard from during the hearing on this bill. I appreciate his commitment to working in a bipartisan way in developing good and workable policy in this legislation.

As has been already said, the purpose of our bill is really pretty simple. We know that small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country. We want to encourage investors to take a closer look at small businesses and invest in them so that they can continue to grow and create jobs once they have gone public.

In my home State of Delaware, as a corporate center, we have a lot of people who spend a lot of time paying attention to corporate formation and corporate governance. In a former life as the State secretary of finance and as Lieutenant Governor, I worked with a lot of these people. They have been following the trends over the past 10 years, and they have seen and observed the decline in IPOs and the changes in the growth of emerging growth companies after going public.

That is why last year I worked with my colleague, Mr. Fincher from Tennessee, on a provision in the JOBS Act that created an onramp for companies to go public. The bill has already been credited with helping fuel the recent uptick we have seen in the initial public offerings, which is very good for job

growth in this economy. H.R. 3448 builds on that work by helping companies grow after their IPO.

Our hope, as has been described, is that increasing the increments that stocks trade in will draw more attention to these small emerging growth companies. We hope that brokers will spend more time and resources researching these companies and, ultimately, encourage greater investment in them. This increased coverage from brokers and analysts will help small companies grow and create jobs.

We have heard concerns about some unintended consequences that increased tick size could have, which is why this bill instructs the SEC to conduct a pilot program to better examine the effects and effectiveness of larger spreads. Additionally, this bill gives the SEC the flexibility to implement a pilot program in a way that will produce the best information on how to proceed afterwards.

Thanks to members and staff on both sides of the aisle working closely together, we were able to come up with a bill that makes sense and that addresses the concerns that we heard from other members, from stakeholders, and from the Financial Services Committee hearing that we had.

The four amendments accepted in the committee were all consistent with our original objective. Each improved the bill based on input that we received from members and stakeholders.

This bill is truly a bipartisan effort. As Mr. Garrett pointed out, it passed out of the committee on a 57-0 vote. As with any piece of legislation, once we got into the weeds, it turned out to be a little bit more complicated than we initially thought, but the end result is a good product that Members on both sides of the aisle can support.

I want to close by again thanking Mr. Duffy and his staff for their hard work and for working together with us and involving us in the discussions about the particulars of this bill.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3448, the Small Cap Liquidity Reform Act of 2013.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position on rollcall votes 12 and 13 cast on January 13, 2014.

On rollcall vote No. 12, on consideration of H.R. 1513 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 13, on consideration of S. 230 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the 1973 basketball team from Howard High School in Wilmington, Delaware. This year marks 40 years since Howard's sensational '73 team won Delaware's boys State championship with an undefeated season of 24-0.

Howard's '73 team wasn't the biggest; but the Wildcats were disciplined, and they played with a lot of heart. They were led by their brilliant guards David Roane and Kenny Hynson and the irrepressible Mike Miller, who battled much taller players under the boards.

Supported by a big family of coaches, teachers, classmates, and Howard alumni, the Wildcats became the first team in Delaware history to finish the season undefeated.

There were several games where it looked like Howard might get knocked off, including a nail-biter against the much bigger Salesianum in the State semifinal; but the Wildcats were always able to pull out the victory in the end.

Today I want to recognize Howard High School's 1973 boys basketball team, honor them for their historic season, and thank them for the work they continue to do for youth in the State of Delaware.

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

About a year ago, I talked to a young marine from Magnolia, Delaware, in my district. He had been wounded in Afghanistan and was home recovering. I had called him really just to wish him well and to see how he was doing. This marine was not focused on his injuries. All he could think about and talk to me about was getting back to his base.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we need to be worthy of this marine's sacrifice, his selflessness, and his dedication to fighting for his country. Our Nation's most sacred obligation is to care for our men and women in uniform, both when they are serving abroad and when they come back home.

Unfortunately, today, we are falling short of this duty. Today, about 60,000 veterans are homeless. Close to 13,000 of these are veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While veterans represent only 7 percent of the U.S. population, they represent 13 percent of homeless Americans.

These numbers are just unacceptable. That is why I was pleased to join with my colleagues and friends, Mr. Heck and Mr. Renacci, in introducing the Vulnerable Veterans Housing Reform Act of 2013. We are all part of a bipartisan working group that meets a couple of times a month. We have come up with a number of commonsense ideas just like this bill. Mr. Delaney and Mr. Renacci have another bill later on today.

Simply put, the Vulnerable Veterans Housing Reform Act ensures that veterans who need and deserve housing assistance get it. Right now, those veterans who are struggling the most--those who are severely disabled and have virtually no income--receive a benefit from the VA to cover the cost of their care. This benefit goes to caretakers who help our veterans with the daily tasks of living, bathing, eating, maintaining prosthetics, and the list goes on. However, when these same veterans go to apply for housing assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this aid counts as income, making it harder for them to qualify for housing assistance. This policy just doesn't make sense, and it is hurting our veterans.

H.R. 1742, the Vulnerable Veterans Housing Reform Act, fixes this problem so that our severely disabled veterans aren't victims of homelessness as well. It excludes this aid--meant to address the health and daily living needs of severely disabled veterans--from the calculation of income in the housing assistance program.

Mr. Speaker, often when Members come in through the doors of the House Chamber to vote, we are greeted by members of our military who have been wounded in service of our Nation. Most have lost limbs, and all their lives are irreparably changed. Despite all they have already given, these men and women come to our Nation's Capitol to continue giving back and to inspire and thank us. We should thank them.

As we approach Veterans Day, I hope the House will honor their sacrifice by passing legislation that will make life just a little easier for those who have given so much to protect ours.

I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize this as a critical issue. A similar version of this bill passed the House by voice vote in the last Congress. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill once again for the sake of our Nation's most vulnerable veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I just would like to thank the sponsors, Mr. Heck, Mr. Renacci, and other veterans, Mr. Cotton, the Members from the Democratic side who cosponsored this, and all the Members of the House who supported this the last time.

I yield back the balance of my time.