Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, during the financial crisis, 19 of the 20 largest financial institutions in the United States either required a bailout or a significant investment by the taxpayers. Clearly, reform was needed, and Dodd-Frank was that reform.

Since Dodd-Frank was put in place, consumer protections have improved materially, the banking system is safer and more sound, and our banks and our markets have far outpaced their international competitors. Dodd-Frank is working.

Is it a perfect piece of legislation? Of course not. Anytime Congress does something large and transforms an entire industry, we should sign up as a body for 10 years of fixes, which is what we have not done, and we have let the American people down.

Are we fixing Dodd-Frank today? No. We are pursuing a misguided and time-consuming and wasteful repeal effort.

I urge my colleagues to reject the CHOICE Act, and I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats on bipartisan reforms to Dodd-Frank that build on its strength and solve and improve weaknesses in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding me this time, the vice ranking member of our committee, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), my good friend, for cosponsoring this legislation with me.

I do rise in support of H.R. 1343, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a very simple piece of legislation. The chairman of the committee said it was a simple piece of legislation. It is very straightforward. It simply raises the threshold as to the amount of stock a private corporation can give its employees, from $5 million to $10 million, without triggering additional disclosure.

What this bill is not about is rolling back disclosure because, as a practical matter, it simply defines the threshold as to when additional disclosure is required. That threshold was originally

established in 1988 at $5 million. Five million dollars was good in 1988; it is no longer good in 2017. We have simply escalated that amount by inflation, and we have come up with the number $10 million, which is proposed in the legislation.

One of the reasons this legislation does not roll back disclosures, which is a myth that I intend to debunk here this afternoon, is because, as a practical matter, what corporations will do is, in fact, not give additional stock to their employees if, in fact, it triggers additional disclosures. That is what actually happens in the private market is this threshold defines the amount of stock that a company will, in fact, give to its employees in any given year; and, if we don't raise the cap from $5 million to $10 million, we are effectively preventing companies from allowing their employees to share in stock ownership.

Private companies make decisions, Mr. Speaker, to stay private for many reasons: either because they are too small and they don't want to go public; or they don't want to, in fact, disclose their confidential information; or they don't want the costs or burdens of being a public company; or because they don't want to give up control. Whatever reason they have, it is a very important decision for a private company to stay private and not go public. The current threshold of $5 million effectively forces a company to make the kind of disclosures it would have to make as a public company if it elects to give more than $5 million of stock to its employees.

We, as policymakers, should encourage more employee ownership in the markets because it is good for both the corporations and the employees. It is good for the corporations because it creates a better culture. It allows the management team and the employees of the company to have a more long-term perspective, and it reduces turnover, which is one of the highest costs that companies have. So it is very good for the companies.

But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, it is even better for the employees. The data suggest that companies that have high employee ownership are much less likely to lay off their employees during a recession. So it creates, effectively, better retention, which is obviously in the interest of employees.

But the other thing it does--and I think this is the most important point--is it encourages kind of an inclusive capitalism whereby workers actually own more of the U.S. economy. This is something, as Democrats, we should care about, in particular, because we have talked for many years about how the growth in the U.S. economy and the increases in productivity have disproportionately gone to capital and not to workers.

We believe there are many reasons this has occurred, but one of the things we should be advocating for, strongly, is increasing workers' ownership of capital. It will inevitably lead to more savings among workers, and it will start balancing out the distribution of profits in society. One of the ways we do that is to eliminate the barriers for companies to issue stock to their employees, which is effectively what this bill does.

So if we care about this concept of inclusive capitalism, if we believe American workers should own a greater percentage of the economy and, therefore, benefit from the productivity enhancements that are occurring in the economy and the economic growth that is occurring in the economy, we should put policies in place specifically to make it easier for corporations to engage in shared employee ownership, which is exactly what this bill does.

I had firsthand experience with this prior to coming to Congress. I started two businesses as private companies, and they both became publicly traded companies. I shared ownership in those companies broadly with my team. It was very good for my business, and it was very good for hundreds of them when those initial public offerings occurred.

So I have firsthand experience with this. I do think it is good public policy across the long term, and I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1343.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 25th Anniversary of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Gang Investigators Network. MARGIN is a group of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals, representing agencies throughout Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. who work together to promote officer and public safety by providing relevant gang information to law enforcement officers.

What started as an informal group of gang investigators, has turned into monthly meetings where MARGIN participants gather to exchange information on current investigations, gang structure, membership, and new trends and patterns. MARGIN helps our law enforcement successfully tackle the increasingly complex world of gang violence and keep our region safe. On behalf of my constituents, I'd like to thank the entire MARGIN membership for the work that they do to protect Marylanders.

Mr Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call vote No. 121. Had I been present to vote on roll call vote No. 121, I would have voted ``NO.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll calls No. 86 and No. 87. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 86, I would have voted Aye. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 87, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. Chair, we all know that hard-edged partisan politics has not only eroded the confidence that the American people have in our government, but it has caused government to function to a very low standard.

In my 4 years that I have been in this Congress, I have never seen a better example of that than what we have here today. Because today, we are considering a budget that is not only fiscally irresponsible, it doubles our deficits across 10 years, increases the national debt by $10 trillion, but its sole purpose is to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The purpose of today's budget is not to amend the Affordable Care Act to preserve its strengths and tackle it weaknesses, nor is the purpose of today's budget to repeal the Affordable Care Act and put something in place that has been well thought through and shared with the American public. The purpose of today's bill is to repeal the Affordable Care Act in a cold, hard way and let the chips fall where they fall. And this is not being done because it is good policy.

Anyone who is serious about healthcare policy--even people who oppose the Affordable Care Act--who has looked at this issue, has concluded, by any measure, the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed without a replacement. It is being done for political reasons because my colleagues, unfortunately, for years, have told their supporters that they would repeal this bill at all cost, without having the courage or convictions to explain to them the consequences of repeal without replacement; nor without the determination to do the work to come up with an alternative.

The Affordable Care Act was passed 8 years ago. It was passed on a straight party-line basis, which was unfortunate. It had three important goals, which it has achieved: to expand health care in over 20 million people; to lower the overall cost of health care in this country, which is the most important number in our fiscal health; and to improve the quality of health care.

Is it perfect? No. Are we addressing its problems today? No. Are we repealing it without any replacement? Yes. By any measure, will that be bad for the public health and potentially cause a public health crisis in the United States of America? The answer to that is yes.

I urge my colleagues to reject the budget proposal.

Mr. Chair, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 66 today due to congressional business. Had I been present to vote, I would have voted `aye'.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Northwest High School football team and Head Coach Mike Neubeiser of Germantown, Maryland. On Friday, December 5, the Jaguars won their second consecutive Maryland Class 4A State Football Championship.

The Northwest Jaguars capped off a 13-1 season with a 34-31 win over Old Mill. The Jaguars rolled through the playoffs, outscoring their opponents by an impressive 147-67 margin. The Jaguars repeated last year's success by winning their second title in a row, and being the first Montgomery County team to do so in 15 years. The championship is the team's third title.

Being the reigning champion, Coach Neubeiser's squad started the season as the favorite. Their only loss came in week 9, and the Jaguars quickly rebounded to stay on the championship road. I want to thank Coach Neubeiser and his staff for their leadership, as well as all the student-athletes for their hard work and determination to be the best they can be both in the classroom and on the field. I also wish the Northwest Jaguars the best of luck as they look to win their third straight title next season.

I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues help me in honoring this significant accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Fort Hill High School football team and Head Coach Todd Appel for winning the Maryland Class 1A State Football Championship for the second year in a row on Saturday, December 6th.

The Fort Hill Sentinels finished a second consecutive perfect 14-0 season with a 40-8 win against Douglass High School. The Sentinels have now won back-to-back state championships, their fourth in school history. They continued last season's dominance, outscoring their opponents 197-64.

Coach Appel has now compiled an impressive 80-11 record through seven seasons. The Sentinels started as the favorite and never looked back, sweeping the regular season and playoffs. I want to thank Coach Appel and his staff for their leadership, as well as all the student-athletes for their hard work and determination to be the best they can be both in the classroom and on the field. The Sentinels success over the last two years has brought pride to both Fort Hill High School and the local community. I also wish the Fort Hill Sentinels the best of luck as they look to win their third straight title next season.

I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues help me in honoring this significant accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, today, I pay special tribute to an outstanding citizen from the State of Maryland, Arnold Harvey.

One of the great strengths of this country is how the American people look out for one another. When our neighbor is suffering, we lend a hand.

Arnold Harvey personifies that virtue. A Waste Management commercial driver for over 20 years, Mr. Harvey saw individuals and families in need along his route and worked to do something about it. In cooperation with his employer, Mr. Harvey organized food and clothing drives. He also founded a non-profit, God's Connection Transition to help those in his community in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Today, in partnership with grocery stores, retailers, churches and shelters, his non-profit donates food to 5,000 families a month.

Arnold Harvey is a shining light helping others during dark times. The Congressional Record should reflect the good work he has done as a permanent testament to his generosity and the generosity of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Arnold Harvey for his outstanding service to his community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor the following Teachers

for being named Teacher of the Year in their counties, each of which is in Maryland's Sixth District:

Mrs. Dana Reinhardt: Teacher of the Year Allegany County

Public Schools, 3rd Grade, George's Creek Elementary School.

Ms. Erin Doolittle: Teacher of the Year Frederick County

Public Schools, Pre-K, Hillcrest Elementary School.

Mr. Ryan Wolf: Teacher of the Year Garrett County Public

Schools, Math, Southern Garrett High School.

Mrs. Jane Lindsay: Teacher of the Year Montgomery County

Public Schools, 8th Grade Reading and English, John Poole

Middle School.

Mrs. Courtney Leard: Teacher of the Year Washington County

Public Schools, 2nd Grade, Fountaindale Elementary School.

There are few callings more important to society than teaching, and these teachers have shown extraordinary skill, commitment, and ingenuity in the classroom. Dana Reinhardt, Erin Doolittle, Ryan Wolf, Jane Lindsay, and Courtney Leard have made a difference for their students and made their communities stronger. Their example is a reminder of the great work done by teachers across Maryland and around the country. Every child in America deserves teachers like this and schools that position them to succeed as adults.

It was my sincere honor to meet with them in the U.S. Capitol and hear their perspective on the major issues in education today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating these Teachers of the Year for their tremendous achievement.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

We have all been very disturbed by the recent allegations of negligence and of the falsification of information at some of the VA medical centers across the country. We must work together to better serve our servicemembers, veterans, and their families, who have served us all with such great distinction.

My amendment works to solve one specific but very important problem facing military families.

When our warfighters and veterans need medical care, their families are often faced with a very difficult dilemma: either to stay home because it is too expensive to travel in order to be with their families or to travel and bear the burden of the costs associated with being with their loved ones at this great time of need.

Unfortunately, too many families are staying home without having the opportunity to be with their loved ones who have served our country when those loved ones are receiving care at a military hospital. Others make the trip, but they often sleep in their cars or sleep in tents that they have set up in parking lots around these hospitals. Our veterans and servicemen and -women and their families deserve much better than this.

My amendment increases the funding for Fisher Houses by $16 million. This additional funding has the potential to provide more free housing for the families of patients receiving care at military and VA hospitals. In order to pay for this increased funding, this amendment reduces funding for the defense-wide operations and maintenance account, and my amendment is outlay neutral as a result.

Since 1990, over 180,000 families have been served by Fisher Houses-- more than 22,000 families in the last year alone. The services offered by Fisher Houses have saved military families almost $240 million in out-of-pocket expenses since the program's inception. Families do not have to make these tough financial choices to visit and care for their loved ones. This amendment has the potential of funding the construction of at least four new Fisher homes next year. Four new homes mean the lodging for 2,000 military family members.

So many men and women have served us with such distinction, and for those who return home and who need medical care, Fisher Houses can make a stay in a military hospital or in a clinic a little bit easier and a little bit kinder for our soldiers and their families. No veteran or no servicemember should do without his loved ones at this time of need.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Last year, the House came together to support this same amendment, and I hope they will do the same this year.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, the ranking member.

My response to the ranking member is that I have great confidence in the Fisher House team's ability to handle the funds. I think this is an example of where we need to get

ahead of the need and not be behind some of the needs, but I appreciate the ranking member's support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Delaney

Amendment No. 20: Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(reduced by $24,000,000)''.

Page 88, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the

following: ``(increased by $16,000,000)''.

I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue, for organizing our discussion here today, and for his leadership on so many other important issues here in the Congress, and I like the way he introduced this next segment of our discussions around economic policy because I will spend a little bit of time on that.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start by talking about probabilities and severities--because I think it is important to think about that when we are thinking about climate change--and then move into some market-based solutions that I think work very well with some of the EPA's recent guidance, which I am very supportive of.

Let's start with the view of what experts think of this issue. It is estimated that 97 percent of the serious climate scientists in the world believe that climate change is occurring and that human behavior is contributing to this.

A friend of mine had a very good analogy for this when he said: If you took your child to 100 physicians and 97 of those physicians said that your child had a condition that needed to be treated, would you wait to get the last three? Or would you act on the advice of 97 percent of the physicians?

That is effectively what we have with respect to the advice that serious climate scientists have with respect to the two questions as to whether is climate change happening and is human behavior contributing to it.

Secondly, there is a body of work around what are the consequences if climate change were to continue, and it is similarly overwhelming in terms of the view that, if it were to occur, the costs, both moral-- right, in terms of the stewardship of our planet, but we will put that aside for a second--and financial, are very significant.

If you look at the United States, if you look at costs associated with weather--extreme weather along our coasts, extreme weather in the Midwest, droughts in the west, fires that are being caused from that, disruption in people's lives, costs to the Federal Government, these are very, very significant costs.

That is not even counting the geopolitical costs associated with continued climate change. A very large percentage of the poor people in the world live at or below sea level. The effect that rising tides will have in disrupting their lives, we should understand will have a very significant geopolitical implication.

So let's think about the probabilities and severities. There is some chance--I view it very small, but some chance--that 97 percent of climate scientists are wrong, that, in fact, nothing is happening. I view that as a 10 percent probability.

So whatever we do, the changes in our behavior have to be measured against the 10 percent of the probability. There is an overwhelming likelihood that the scientists are right. That is why 97 percent of them agree.

The fact that they are in accord on this issue would make me think, from a probability-weighted basis, that there is an 80 percent probability that they are right.

Then there is probably a 10 percent probability that they are wrong the

other way, that they are seriously underestimating the effects of climate change, and it could accelerate, and the consequences are actually much greater than we had believed.

So if you add up all of those probabilities and multiply them by the severities, you come to a view that this could be one of the central generational challenges of this era, in terms of addressing this issue from a both moral and economic perspective.

I think my colleague from Maryland framed it well when he talked about the economic opportunities because I think we have been presented with a false choice. The choice has been act on this issue, act against the advice of 97 percent of the climate scientists, or, you know, ruin our economy if we do that; and that is the choice we have been presented with.

That is fundamentally not the right choice because, if you have a view that the evidence will continue to mount, you have to assume that, ultimately, humans--both in the United States and around the world-- will react to this issue. That is the logical assumption.

If that logical assumption turns out to be true, then we should assume that, in 25 to 50 years, the way this world--and this country in particular--but the way this world produces energy, distributes energy, utilizes energy, and conserves energy will be very, very different than it is today.

As a businessperson, I look at that, and I say big, big opportunity. It is a big opportunity to be the leader in energy production, energy distribution, energy conservation, and energy utilization.

So there is a concept in business known as the first mover advantage. The person who reacts first gets the best technology, gets the best experts, gets the best insights, and that is what I believe, as a matter of economics, this Nation should be doing.

As someone who believes the power of markets is very significant to change behavior--in fact, I believe there are only two things that really change human behavior: one is their faith, and the other is financial incentives.

We have an opportunity, I believe, as it relates to climate change to not only get the faith community behind this issue--which I believe they will, the faith community cares deeply about the stewardship of the planet, God's greatest gift to us. I believe in the future, we will see the faith community--and it is already there, to a very significant extent--getting behind this more.

I also think there are things that we can do in terms of creating the right financial incentives to change the behavior. I believe things like a carbon tax, where you create a market-based solution and you tax something that we fundamentally shouldn't like--carbon--in exchange for taxing things we should like--like human beings and profits--is a better scenario for our country going forward, which is why, in combination with the new EPA regulations, we are introducing something called the State's Choice Act.

What the State's Choice Act does is require the Federal Government to give every State in this country another option. It is not a requirement. It is an option, and if the State decides to put in place a carbon tax, where they tax something we shouldn't like today--and I am sure we definitely will not like in the future, which is carbon emissions--and they can take the revenues from that carbon tax and deploy them against any priority they have, including lowering other taxes in their State, if a State puts in place a carbon tax, then they are deemed in compliance with the EPA regulations.

So it is providing States with an option--not a requirement, an option--to put in place a mechanism--a market-based mechanism in lieu of a regulatory framework.

Environmentalists believe a carbon tax is the best solution because they understand that financial incentives change behavior most significantly. Business broadly believes this is the right solution because it is a market-based approach.

In fact, the largest energy company in the world, ExxonMobil Corporation, disclosed something last year that I viewed as very consequential, that they will begin, in their financial assumptions--so in other words, when ExxonMobil projects the future and their business against those projections, they are assuming that, at some point, there will be a social cost of carbon imposed through some form of taxing system.

What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that ExxonMobil is, today, making business decisions based on the fact that that will happen. Most major corporations, most of the Fortune 500 is doing the same thing. They see where this is going.

I believe that, when government and the private sector work well together, we get the best outcomes. So when you see policymakers and people who care about climate change saying their carbon tax approach is the right answer and when you see the overwhelming majority of the Fortune 500 believing a carbon tax is the right answer, I think we should be embracing market-based solutions, which is what we are trying to do with this State's Choice Act.

We applaud the actions of the EPA. This is a serious problem for the reasons I discussed earlier, and I think their actions, particularly in the absence of other actions coming out of Congress, are the right answer.

We believe this is a great opportunity to also start the conversation around market-based solutions, which is why we would like to give every State in this country the option to pursue a market-based solution in exchange for a regulatory solution.

This is an incredibly important topic. Again, I want to thank my colleague for organizing us here today and giving me the opportunity to comment on my views on this.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of my constituent, Warren Weinstein, who has been held captive by al Qaeda for over 1,000 days. This past week, the headlines have been dominated by the release of Bowe Bergdahl. But these headlines should also remind us that there are other Americans held as prisoners overseas.

Warren is a loving husband, a father, and a grandfather. He is 72 years old. Recent videos released by al Qaeda show him in bad and deteriorating health. This is a man of peace and of love. He has dedicated his life to public service, starting with the Peace Corps up until his service with USAID, which is what he was doing in Pakistan when he was captured 4 days before his scheduled return.

I have written the administration and encouraged them to use all means available to bring Warren home. This week, I will be introducing a resolution in the House encouraging them to do the same for Warren and for every American held overseas. We must not forget these Americans. We must bring them home.

Warren, today you are not forgotten by this Congress or this country.