Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call No. 443 through No. 445.

Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 443, I would have voted aye; had I been present to vote on roll call No. 444, I would have voted aye; and had I been present to vote on roll call No. 445, I would have voted aye

Mr. Speaker, this week we have seen firsthand another example of how government inaction is failing the American people.

With preexisting conditions at risk, hospitals are being forced to take on drug companies alone without any action from their Congress, and we continue to have a staggering mental health crisis in this country.

The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 75 percent of the American people want preexisting conditions to be protected, conditions like asthma, mental health, cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer's, MS, Crohn's, colitis, surgery, and pregnancy--yes, pregnancy.

Are we really going to allow women to be charged more for their healthcare because they want to be mothers?

With out-of-control drug prices, 90 percent of the American people agree that we should be allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower those prices and stop the wealth transfer from the taxpayers of the U.S. to the shareholders of these companies. But that is not taking place.

I, for one, am tired of Congress' inaction. This week, I introduced a letter, a bipartisan letter, to ask for additional funding to expand programs for mental health education, treatment, and suicide prevention.

Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of the American people believe more mental health support should be provided to our youth, and the funding requested in this letter will do just that.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for joining me in their work and strongly encourage the rest of the Congress to start acting on these important issues.

Mr. Speaker, the scientists have spoken. Climate change is happening, human behavior is contributing to it, and it is a long- term threat to our prosperity and our national security.

But climate change is also the ultimate, very large problem that moves very slowly, which makes it particularly poorly matched with the political system we have today. And what causes me great concern is when wrongheaded resolutions which I oppose--and I oppose the rule associated with it--are put to the floor of this House to discourage this House from proposing the most effective and most successful way of dealing with climate change, which is to put a price on carbon.

We can take all of those revenues and return them to the American people. We can wall them off from government spending. There is a whole variety of approaches we could take to ensure that the revenues generated from taxing carbon pollution are returned to the American people.

As a Congress, wouldn't we rather tax pollution than tax hardworking Americans? That is what a carbon tax will do. I encourage my colleagues to reject this resolution and allow us to have the real debate the American people deserve on this floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their support of our veterans and for our servicemen and -women. I would also like to thank the cosponsors of this amendment with me, Debbie Dingell of Michigan, Don Young of Alaska, Ann Wagner of Missouri, Darren Soto of Florida, and Peter Welch of Vermont, for their bipartisan efforts in placing something as important as Fisher House Foundation far above politics.

Fisher House provides 100 percent free lodging for military families, allowing families to stay together while their loved ones are being taken care of in a VA Hospital or military facility.

On any given night, up to 1,000 families are staying in one of the 76 Fisher Houses in districts all across this country, and their need is only growing.

This effort that is the subject of this amendment will help Fisher House build new homes and serve more of our military families.

Fisher House has served over 335,000 families thus far and provided $407 million in estimated out-of-pocket savings on lodging and transportation to our military families.

Looking ahead, they have eight houses already under construction and have identified 20 more locations in need of their support in their pipeline.

Fisher House is a highly rated nonprofit, having received an A-plus rating from CharityWatch and awarded the Independent Charities Seal of Excellence.

Most importantly, it is a beloved institution throughout our military and veteran communities.

This amendment increases Federal support for Fisher House from $5 million to $10 million. It has strong bipartisan support and is a good example of the things we can do if we work together.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this program.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my friend.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I want them to have one visual in their minds when they think about it. Prior to the Fisher House--which, again, is a public- private partnership; the government money is leveraged with third-party donations--prior to the Fisher House, family members of our veterans who were receiving care often camped out in tents on the grounds of VA hospitals or other military facilities. The Fisher House has solved that problem, which is one of the reasons we should be supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 289 through No. 293.

Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 289, I would have voted ``yea.''

Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 290, I would have voted ``yea.''

Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 291, I would have voted ``nay.''

Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 292, I would have voted ``nay.''

Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 293, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call No. 287 & No. 288. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 287, I would have voted `Yea'. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 288, I would have voted `Yea'.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call No. 183. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 183, I would have voted `YEA'.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call No. 168. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 168, I would have voted `YEA'.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the balanced budget amendment, which, in my judgment, is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen since I have been in the Congress.

First, it will act as a doomsday machine, destroying critical programs like Social Security, Medicare, investments in our infrastructure, investments in science and research, and investments in our military.

Second, it represents wrongheaded economics. To manage the country with a zero deficit is not smart economic policy.

Third, it is being presented to the American people in a deceitful manner. To compare fiscal planning of the U.S. Government to how hardworking families in this country should manage their own personal finances is misrepresenting how we should think about our government.

And fourth, it is being done entirely for political reasons: to direct attention away from tax legislation that has materially increased the deficit of this country.

If we wanted to have an honest conversation about the fiscal situation of this country, which is terrible and projected to be worse, we would focus on three numbers: The first number we would focus on, or the first percentage, is our debt as a percentage of our economy; the second ratio we would focus on is how much we think our economy could grow each year; and the third number we would focus on is the percentage of our deficit as expressed relative to our economy.

If we actually wanted to work together, if the majority and the minority wanted to work together and put together a fiscal plan for this country that was responsible, that represented smart economics, allowed us to invest in our country, and put us on a trajectory where the debt, as a percentage of our economy, would go down over time and return to normal levels, then we

would be talking about how do we come up with a budget that had deficits on an annual basis of minus 1.5 to 2 percent.

That wouldn't put us in a position where we have to slash so many important government programs because this government has insufficient tax revenues. In fact, our tax revenues are the lowest as a percentage of our economy that they have been in 50 years.

But if we actually wanted to have a real conversation about putting this country on an appropriate kind of long-term fiscal trajectory, we would work towards 2 percent deficits. Because if, in fact, our economy could grow at 2.5 percent a year, then, by definition, the debt as a percentage of our economy would go down; and it would go down by setting realistic goals that don't represent inappropriate cuts to core government programs like Medicare and Social Security and our defense spending and our investment in our country, in our kids, in our infrastructure, and in our research.

That would be a conversation that represents smart economic policy. It would be an honest conversation with the American people. It wouldn't be done for political reasons, and it would materially improve the fiscal trajectory of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for giving me an opportunity to rise in support of H.R. 4061, a bipartisan bill that I worked very closely on with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to partner with him on this bill. This is a bill, as has already been stated, that came out of the Financial Services Committee with the support of the majority of the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, about 10 years ago, we had a financial crisis; and during that financial crisis, 19 of the 20 largest financial institutions in this country failed or needed support from the Federal Government. More importantly, tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their retirement savings.

In the wake of that crisis, it was very appropriate for Congress to do something, and we did, with Dodd-Frank legislation, which is legislation that I strongly support. As part of the Dodd-Frank legislation, FSOC was established, the Financial Stability Oversight Council; and the job of FSOC was to reduce systemic risk in the financial services sector, which is a mission that I also support.

But they were given very limited tools to fulfill that mission. Effectively, their one tool was to designate companies as systemically risky to the system. So they had the power to designate; they didn't really have the power to de-risk the system, which should be their job.

What this piece of legislation--again, this piece of strongly bipartisan legislation--does is effectively empower FSOC with the ability to reduce risk in the financial services system by working in a collaborative manner with companies that it is considering designated and the primary regulators of those companies to develop plans to de- risk those companies.

Mr. Speaker, wouldn't we be better off with a financial services system that has less risk in it, fewer companies that are considered systemically risky in substance, as opposed to having a system that is inherently more risky or has greater risk and has more companies designated?

In other words, designation doesn't, in and of itself, reduce risk. What reduces risk is primary regulators working with FSOC and companies that it deems potentially worthy of designation to develop strategies and plans to de-risk those companies. That is precisely what this legislation does.

That is precisely what this designation does, which is why so many Democrats supported this bill, because we believe, as do many of my Republican colleagues, that the mission of FSOC is worthy and that we should be empowering FSOC to do its job and de-risk the financial industry of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 646, No. 647, No. 648, and No. 649. Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 646, I would have voted AYE; had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 647, I would have voted AYE; had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 648, I would have voted NO; and had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 649, I would have voted YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 638 and No. 639.

Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 638, I would have voted `YEA'.

Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 639, I would have voted `YEA'.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 623, No. 624,

and No. 625. Had I been present, on Roll Call No. 623, I would have voted `YEA'; on Roll Call No. 624, I would have voted `YEA'; and on Roll Call No. 625, I would have voted `NAY'.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 607, No. 608, and No. 609. Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 607, I would have voted YEA; Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 608, I would have voted YEA; Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 609, I would have voted NAY.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Mr. John C. Coughlin on his retirement after an accomplished career, having served as a federal employee for 28 years.

Mr. Coughlin was born and raised in Bethesda, Maryland. He received his Bachelor of Science Degree from the United States Naval Academy, was commissioned as an Ensign in the U.S. Navy, and served in the Navy's Aviation and Intelligence Office Program as a Command Pilot and Program Manager. After serving his country, Mr. Coughlin joined the Department of Energy in 1989, where he began an impressive career working with the Department's radiological emergency response assets. He served in various prestigious capacities, including the Director of the Office of Emergency Operations and Response, the Special Assistant to the Office of Self-Assessment and Emergency Management, the Director of the Threat Assessment Division for the Department's Programmatic and Nuclear Threat Programs, the first Director of the Office of Emergency Planning Preparedness and Operations here, within the U.S. House of Representatives, and most recently, the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for the U.S. House of Representatives. His work over the past 28 years has greatly benefitted our nation's security and preparedness in the event of an emergency, and we are grateful for all he's done to ensure the safety and readiness of our country.

Mr. Coughlin has had an outstanding career in public service, and I am pleased to recognize him both as an upstanding citizen and an exemplary resident of Maryland's 6th District. I congratulate Mr. Coughlin on a successful and impactful career and wish him all the best during his well-deserved retirement