Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this destructive government shutdown. It just doesn't make any sense, and it's hurting people, and it's hurting the economy.

While Congress is wasting time on the shutdown, we have important work to do. We need to reform our housing finance system.

Right now, the Federal Government backs over 90 percent of all mortgages being made. That's just not sustainable. We have to bring private capital back into the markets, and we have to reduce the government's role, but we have to do it in a smart way.

For generations, owning a home has been part of the American Dream. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has made that dream possible for many of us, and so our number one priority in reforming our housing finance system should be preserving the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

But the legislation currently moving through the House doesn't do that. That's why we need to work together on both sides of the aisle to fix that problem.

We need to reform our housing finance system and protect taxpayers, but we also must preserve home ownership for millions of American families.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the midst of this manufactured crisis here in the Capitol to join many of my colleagues on the Democratic side for something that we all can get behind, which is creating strong manufacturing jobs here in our great country.

One of the frustrations about the impasse that we have here in the House and in the Capitol is that we have some really serious issues that confront us as a country. And I think the most important among them is, where are the jobs of the future going to come from? We know that in our districts--Mr. Ryan of Ohio and some of the other speakers tonight, in my State of Delaware--that manufacturing has been the backbone, particularly of those jobs that provide middle class incomes for generations.

We've lost so many since 2008. My home State, we've lost both of our auto manufacturing plants, the General Motors plant at Boxwood Road and the Chrysler plant in Newark.

We've lost, over the past 10 years or so, Avon Products, a manufacturing facility in Newark. And for generations, downstate in the town of Seaford, the Dupont nylon plant provided a pathway to middle class for generations of families down there.

We know that the competition for those jobs, today and into the future, is going to define the success of our own ability to maintain a middle class here in the United States, and also, define the competition that we have with our neighbors around the world.

There's some hope on the horizon. In recent years, we've seen a new trend called insourcing. We're actually seeing companies moving back jobs here into the United States.

General Electric, one of the premiere manufacturing industrial conglomerates, international companies here in the U.S., has started to move appliance manufacturing to the States of Indiana and Ohio and other places in the Midwest from their plants that they moved some years ago to Mexico.

Apple just announced it'll start manufacturing a new laptop here in the United States.

But here's the thing. Not only do we have to attract and bring jobs back to the United States, but once we get them back here through this insourcing trend, we need to make sure that we keep them here.

Making things here at home, whether it's building new cars, the cars of the future, whether it's building the appliances or electronics that we're talking about, help create the strong economic foundation that we've enjoyed as a country and will do so for future generations.

So it's our job, as Members of Congress, to pass laws that will encourage innovation and job creation right here at home, and put hardworking Americans back to work. And that's why I've worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with ways to attract and keep U.S. manufacturing jobs here.

This summer, I joined my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to introduce the Made in America Act. It's really a simple bill. It creates a labeling system called the America Star labels, much like Energy Star, that companies can use to identify the extent to which their products are made in America.

Just this past summer I had to go shopping for a new air-conditioner. My air-conditioner broke down. And it was difficult to determine what products were made here, how much they were made here, what kind of parts were made here.

Last year I bought a new front door, a new oak front door; spent a lot of time going around trying to find a door that was made here in the U.S., and found a wonderful product just over the line in Pennsylvania.

Made in America is something that people want to see, and they want to know what the products that they buy and that they see out there in stores, how much is foreign-made and how much is made here in the USA. And people, consumers, care about it, and that's why this piece of legislation is important because it provides people with the opportunity to know that.

I also got together with the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), who's here in the Chamber, with the Scaling Up Manufacturing Act. I'm sure he'll talk about it. The bill creates a 25 percent tax credit for the cost of construction or lease of a company's first domestic manufacturing facility. Thank you, Mr. Honda, for that, for the opportunity to join you on that.

I also introduced a bill to increase the research and development tax credit from 14 percent to 17 percent and, more importantly, to make it permanent, to create certainty for businesses to locate their research and development facilities here in this country. This will give those companies that certainty that they need to set up those operations.

These are just a few examples, Mr. Speaker, of the ways that Congress can do something to make it possible for us to make things here in America again. We all believe, many of us here, frankly, on both sides of the aisle, believe that making things in America is the key to our economic recovery.

We need to get our house in order here, with the impasse that we're dealing with over the last week, and focus on these efforts, focus on the things that we can do to incentivize U.S. manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my colleagues to resolve this fight and stop this government shutdown. Today, Federal workers across the country, including at Dover Air Force Base in my home State of Delaware, are being sent home without pay. America is better than this. Many of us on both sides of the aisle are willing to work together to find consensus and to focus on solutions. That's the responsible way to govern.

And I'm convinced that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want this government shutdown either. It's only a small minority of those in the Tea Party who have forced this on the American people. But the

other side has been hijacked by these extremists, and they're holding our government hostage.

It's time to put the people above politics. It's time for the responsible voices here in Congress to prevail. It's time for us to do what's right for the American people, and end this government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position on a vote cast on September 18, 2013. The vote was on passage of H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.

On rollcall vote No. 471, I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a bipartisan, straightforward amendment that I introduced with my colleague, Congressman Radel of Florida, that will help maximize the efficiency of taxpayer dollars used in the Federal crop insurance program.

Periodically, the USDA, through the Risk Management Agency, renegotiates its agreement with private crop insurers for the delivery and administration of Federal crop insurance. These negotiations, known as Standard Reinsurance Agreements, do not affect the premium subsidies paid to farmers and instead focus on the percent of gains or losses assumed by taxpayers and the level of crop insurance administrative and operating costs paid by the Federal Government.

The most recent negotiation was finalized in 2010 and yielded $6 billion in savings. Of these savings, $4 billion was used to reduce the Federal deficit, and the remaining $2 billion was put back into farm programs to supplement conservation efforts and improve certain products provided through the Federal crop insurance program.

Our amendment simply maintains current law by striking a provision in the bill requiring that any savings from future Standard Reinsurance Agreements be put back into the Federal crop insurance program. This amendment continues to respect the importance of a robust farm safety net while maintaining USDA's tools to improve Federal crop insurance, reduce the deficit, and strengthen conservation programs within the farm bill.

Our amendment is supported by taxpayer advocates as well as the environmental community who share the same goal of ensuring that the Federal crop insurance program works for farmers and for taxpayers.

I want to thank my colleague from Florida for working with me on this amendment, and I urge its support. Thank you for your consideration.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by thanking the gentleman from Florida for his assistance on this amendment and just to ask my colleagues to think about what we've been trying to do since I came to this House in 2011, which is to get a budget balanced and to find savings wherever we can.

This is an opportunity to use savings from the renegotiations of these agreements for deficit reduction and other things that the USDA might deem appropriate. So I want to thank my colleague for that, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen soldier from my home State of Delaware.

Last week, I joined the family of Warrant Officer Sean Mullen at Dover Air Force Base to witness the dignified transfer of his remains.

Sean, whose family resides in Dover, Delaware, was killed earlier this month in Afghanistan. He was on his sixth tour of duty. He leaves behind his wife, Nancy, and a life full of service, loyalty, and courage.

As I stood with Sean's mother, Mariam, through her tears, she asked me to do one thing. She said, ``Let the people know what these men and women go through. Let them know what they do for their country.''

That's why I'm here on the floor today--to do what this Gold Star mother asked me to do, which is to remember the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have volunteered out of a sense of patriotism and selflessness to put themselves in harm's way in service to their country.

So to Sean Mullen and to his heroic brothers and sisters in arms who have given their lives to protect ours, I stand here today to say thank you, and may God bless you.

I would like to thank Mr. Scott for yielding time and for his leadership on this issue.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1256. It will lead to a stronger, more robust set of regulations for the derivatives market.

Let me be clear, this is not an effort to roll back Title VII of Dodd-Frank or to weaken its reach overseas. In fact, its intent is to harmonize regulations for cross-border swaps transactions, to eliminate confusion, and to prevent the establishment of two sets of rules in certain jurisdictions, which we know will leave us vulnerable to companies who would want to exploit those loopholes. In fact, this is a goal that our former chair and ranking member articulated well in a letter that he cosigned with Senator Tim Johnson to the regulators dated October 4, 2011, in which he says:

U.S. regulators should work with other international

regulators to seek broad harmonization of appropriately tough

and effective standards. Should current harmonization efforts

ultimately fail or prove a race to the bottom that would

undermine effective regulation, the U.S. would of course

reserve the right to proceed to extend the application of its

standards to overseas operations.

That's exactly what this bill does: it calls on the CFTC and the SEC to issue joint regulations in overseas markets, and in the G8 plus Hong Kong, in those markets where there are already rigorous regulations, the CFTC to determine whether our regulations are strong enough. If they are not, they can apply our regulations there.

So this bill is a good bill to create one set of regulations around the world that will be strong and clear and consistent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1256. It will lead to a stronger, more robust set of regulations for the derivatives market.

Let me be clear, this is not an effort to roll back Title 7 of Dodd- Frank or to weaken its reach overseas.

In fact its intent is to harmonize regulations for cross-border swaps transactions.

To eliminate confusion.

And to prevent the establishment of two sets of rules in certain jurisdictions--which we know leaves us vulnerable to companies who want to exploit loopholes when there's a patchwork of regulations.

Unfortunately, since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the CFTC and SEC have moved forward with conflicting proposals to enforce Dodd-Frank derivatives law in markets overseas.

This bill has one goal: to create clear, strong and consistent rules governing derivatives transactions for U.S. companies operating around the world.

It does this in two ways.

First: it tells the SEC and CFTC to coordinate and issue their swaps regulations jointly. That way, we have one set of regulations that companies have to follow.

Under current law, the two agencies can issue overlapping, or even conflicting regulations. In fact, that's exactly what they've done.

This is confusing and burdensome for U.S. firms. But more importantly, it creates opportunities for firms to exploit inconsistencies and loopholes in the regulations.

This bill requires one consistent set of regulations to close loopholes and eliminate confusion.

Second: this bill acknowledges the strong regulatory commitment some nations have already made to regulate swaps.

The bill says that since these countries are moving forward with derivatives regulations that are comparable to ours in scope and rigor, companies engaged in derivatives transactions in these countries can follow those regulations.

During consideration of this bill in the Financial Services Committee, I supported an amendment offered by the Ranking Member that would have flipped the presumption in the bill.

Instead of presuming that certain countries have broadly equivalent regulations to ours, it would've directed the regulators to proactively make that determination. That amendment didn't pass. But there is a failsafe in this bill.

But, this is critical. Under this bill, if the SEC and CFTC look at these countries' regulations and determine that they are not in fact as strong or robust as our regulations, the agencies can require that companies operating in those countries follow U.S. law.

Our regulators remain in control.

Without this bill, firms operating overseas, even in the nine countries where most of this business takes place, will have to comply both with U.S. regulation, and the regulations of those countries.

Again, this leaves us vulnerable to firms that want to exploit this patchwork regulatory framework. Or worse, it could drive derivative trading away from US firms and further away from the view of our regulators.

The SEC, just a few weeks ago, proposed a draft rule that acknowledges the need for harmonization between our rules and the rules of other countries.

Here's the bottom line.

The goal is really simple, and that is to reach an accommodation where we have strong regulatory requirements that are consistent across borders, that are strong, but that do not create loopholes or confusion in those markets.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the urgent need to make college more affordable. As the father of a rising college freshman, I have renewed appreciation for the astronomical cost of college.

On July 1, the problem will get even worse. Interest rates on Federal student loans are set to double; and that's why I cosponsored the Student Loan Relief Act, which would extend the current, lower rates for 2 more years.

Last month, I voted against a proposal that would have increased rates with the extra money raised going to the Federal Government. Balancing the budget on the backs of our college students is just plain wrong.

The amount of money Americans owe in student loans is greater than the amount we owe in credit card debt. This is a serious problem with serious consequences, and it's getting worse.

The future of our country, we know, depends on the ability of our young people to compete in this global economy. This means making it easier to go to college, not harder.

I urge my colleagues to support legislation that will keep interest rates low and make college more affordable.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 147--``yes'', 148--``yes'', 149--``yes.''

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Thank you, Ranking Member, for your leadership on efforts to strengthen the SEC and to beat back this legislation.

As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I had the privilege yesterday of meeting the new SEC chairman, Mary Jo White. I was very impressed.

I heard her describe her plans to take a tough, fair, and apolitical approach to regulating the financial sector. She wants to strengthen enforcement, she wants to oversee the markets through wise regulations that keep pace with technology, and she wants to complete the rulemaking progress for Dodd-Frank. We know how important each of those things is. She certainly has her work cut out for her, but it sounds like she knows just what the doctor ordered.

Unfortunately, today's bill threatens to distract Chairman White from her efforts to protect investors and to protect our financial system from another crisis. Today's bill piles needless requirements and bureaucratic burdens on an agency that's already got too much to do and that is underfunded.

A critical part of the SEC's mission is protecting investors. This bill protects banks from regulation. It does nothing for investors. In fact, it could hurt investors in the long term.

Chairman White has already committed to issuing rules in a thoughtful way that incorporates rigorous economic analysis, and she told us that yesterday.

The bill is also unnecessary. Regulating our financial sector and protecting American investors is a tall task as it is. We should be passing laws that make the SEC's job easier, not harder. We should be providing the SEC with the resources that it needs to do that job, and that's why I urge my colleagues to oppose today's legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position for the record on rollcall votes 147 through 149 cast on May 15, 2013.

On rollcall vote No. 147, on consideration of H.R. 767 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 148, on consideration of H.R. 701 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 149, on consideration of H.R. 384 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 125, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position for the Record on a vote cast on April 26, 2013. The vote was on passage of H.R. 1765, the Reducing Flight Delays Act.

On rollcall vote No. 125, I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Equal Pay Day and call for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

In my home State of Delaware, a full-time working woman is paid nearly $10,000 less than a man who works full time. That means women in Delaware make 80 cents for every dollar men make; and for women of color, the pay gap is even worse.

If this pay gap were eliminated, women in my State and across the country would have more money to spend on rent, more money for child care, more money for gas, and more money for food.

Above all, a system that pays men more than women for doing the same

job is just not fair; and as Members of Congress, we should do something to fix it. That's why I'm a cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill would make it harder for employers to engage in discrimination against women in the form of unequal pay.

I urge my colleagues to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so women in Delaware who do the same jobs for the same hours get the same paycheck as their male counterparts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the many life achievements of the Honorable Loretta L. Wootten, one of Delaware's most devoted public servants. This March as we celebrate the remarkable contributions women have made throughout our Nation's history, I'm proud to recognize Loretta, someone who has broken ground for women in Delaware.

Loretta emerged as a strong leader early in her political career by helping Delaware's own Joe Biden win his first bid for the United States Senate in 1972. Since then, she has been a trusted adviser for many Delaware leaders.

In 1986, Loretta became the first woman elected as Register in Chancery in Delaware, a position which she held for four consecutive terms. After retiring in 2000, she once again answered the call of her community by serving as Kent County Clerk of the Peace, which she continues to this day.

In addition to her numerous professional accomplishments, Loretta is a devoted wife to her husband of 51 years and a loving mother and grandmother. She is someone who has earned the respect of everyone in our community and helped make Delaware a better place for future generations. It's a privilege for me to call her a friend and work with her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Judge Leonard Williams, who died recently at age 78.

Judge Williams was one of Delaware's most prominent civil rights leaders and a successful lawyer and judge in Wilmington. Judge Williams spent his life breaking barriers and paving the way for others. Judge Williams was one of the first African American students to integrate the University of Delaware and was the first African American on its football team.

Judge Williams was the longtime law partner of Louis Redding, the Wilmington lawyer who argued Delaware's Brown v. Board of Education case before the Supreme Court.

He was a friend and mentor to countless members of our community. Judge Williams was part of the Greatest Generation of African Americans, those who fought the often lonely fight for civil rights and justice, enduring struggle and hardship to make our State and our country a better place for everyone. His presence in the State of Delaware, and particularly in my home city of Wilmington, will be sorely missed.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends.