Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was detained this afternoon at Georgetown University Hospital as my youngest son Blake broke his nose last evening and I was attending to him. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 616, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 617, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 618.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Elizabeth ``Lilly'' Chace. She was a remarkable young woman from Providence, Rhode Island who I had the pleasure of knowing over the whole of her life. She died on October 12th of this year at the tender age of 28 and was buried today. I pause not only to remember her life, but out of love and respect for her parents, Buff and Johnnie Chace.

I also rise because it's in these moments that we think about life and how we might live it more abundantly. How we might make each of our lives count. How we might be a blessing to others and make the most of our time here on earth. I think that the short life that Lilly lived offers insights into each of those areas and, for that reason, believe that a moment of reflection is worthwhile.

She did two things I want to do more of in my life.

One, she did not idly watch it pass by. She lived it. She seized it. I remember years ago, upon the death of Malcolm Forbes, the front page read that ``while alive, he lived.'' I think that this would be a pretty good description of the way that Lilly seized life and the way that I'm inspired to do the same with an example like hers. In fact, Eleanor Roosevelt said ``the purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.''

Indeed, Lilly walked across the glaciers of Patagonia, rode camels through the Moroccan deserts, and ventured into the Alaskan wilderness. I had not seen her much since she was a child, but by all accounts, she had more than an adventurer's spirit and the merit badges to go with it. It has made me think about how I might add in living more richly the years I have before me.

Two, she was all heart. I have on more than a few occasions tied myself in knots over-analyzing some situation before me; but again by all accounts, this was not her nature. She listened to that voice that we all have inside and ran with it. I think the old saying is ``people don't care about how much you know, until they know about how much you care.'' As humans, we ultimately respond to the heart in each other much more than the technicalities of debate talking points. In thinking about her death, I have considered more than a few times about how I might live with a bit more heart and passion the task that's now before me in this chamber. And I think this idea would be worth a bit of focus and collective soul-searching, given the enormity of the issues that face this body.

I point these things out not only because I believe they're worth our shared examination and thought but because I wish so much I could be with the Chace family today in Providence. That's not possible due to this vote we're taking on the budget, but I rise to honor Buff and Johnnie and to say farewell and Godspeed to their daughter Lilly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would make two quick points on the importance of tax reform. One, I would refer to an editorial that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. What it talked about was the nexus between deficits and tax reform. Oddly enough, if you look at the numbers here of late and if you look at the 2017 CBO report, what it shows is that, in fact, deficits are creeping up again. Last year's number is $668 billion.

What they point to in this editorial was that a good part of the reason why deficits have escalated has been tied to anemic economic growth and that, unlike other recoveries that had been more robust in nature, the revenues had not come in as they have in past recoveries. As a consequence, deficits have exploded.

So if you care about the deficits--and I do, and I know that the gentleman from North Carolina does, and I know that other members of the RSC do. If you care about deficits, then you have got to do something about tax reform this year was, in essence, the premise of the editorial.

The other point I would make is this. In a capitalistic society, capital matters. In essence, it is a mathematical formula.

Savings drives investment, which drives productivity gain, which ultimately impacts standards of living or wages, which we talk about. There are only two ways of increasing or improving human productivity. One is with gray matter: you can build a better mousetrap because you have been well educated and you can think of something different. The other is with physical capital. One person with a bulldozer can move a lot more dirt than one person with a shovel.

Yet what we oftentimes forget in the debate on tax reform is how important it is that we encourage and, in essence, complement the efforts of those who are out there risking on a daily basis. So with that in mind, it is important that we have tax reform that includes people who are actually, again, building businesses.

Think about this: the top 25 percent of the earners out there pay 90 percent of the taxes; the top 10 percent pay 60 percent of the taxes.

Now, let's define that for just a second. If you are in the top 25 percent, that begins at $77,000. If you are in the top 10 percent, you are at $133,000.

Now, tell me this: When I talk to a truck driver and a schoolteacher at home, their combined income could be around $100,000. Are they rich? I would say no. But they are out there making the kinds of risks that are necessary to the building of capital that was exactly what The Wall Street Journal talked about.

If we want to do something about deficits, and if we want to do something about capital formation that is so necessary to raising wages, then we have got to do something about this equation. It is important that those earners and those small-business people not be left out, as is the case right now. That is yet another reason why tax reform is so important this year.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, as well, in opposition to the substitute amendment, and I do so because I am struck by the ways in which you can, at times, agree on the diagnosis but disagree on the cure.

I think we would all agree, Republicans and Democrats alike, that we have a real problem in the way that wages have indeed stagnated over the last 30 years. A lot of my Democratic colleagues are nailing it in terms of that diagnosis.

The question though, is the cure. And the question there is: Can we fix that problem by raising taxes by $2.7 trillion? Can we fix that problem by increasing spending by $6.2 trillion? Can we fix that problem by increasing the debt by $3.9 trillion and, in essence, having a budget that never balances?

I would argue, no, and I would say, instead, what we have to look at is the basics, which we have been dancing around, which is the mathematic formula that says: Savings drives investment, which drives productivity gain which, ultimately, impacts standard of living or wages. And what we don't focus on enough is this notion of the investment part of investment; if you want to increase productivity, you have got to increase investment.

In fairness to my Democratic colleagues, part of that is public investment, but another part is private.

What my colleague from Virginia was just getting at a moment ago was, for 50 years, regardless of tax rate, 90 or 28 percent, the take to government has been about 18 percent of GDP very consistently.

So what I would argue is we, indeed, need more public investment, but we also need private investment to go with it. And if we don't watch out, what is being contemplated with this Democratic substitute is a process that will ultimately crowd out that much more in the way of private investment so key to increasing productivity.

Mr. Chair, I would say to my colleague from Kentucky, I think the rhetorical device that he is using at the end of each speaker is very effective and it is persuasive. But I would challenge him with this: I think one of the things that we have got to struggle with as a body, both Republicans and Democrats alike, is not being selective on the issue of the deficits. What we can't say is deficits are okay if it involves more spending for all of us as a body to distribute as we see fit, but deficits are not okay if they involve a tax cut and sending money back to individuals within each of our communities.

It is for that reason, again, I have voiced my concerns with regard to some of the components of this budget. But I think that the big issue for me is, simply, we cannot continue to spend as we are and have the ship of America sail forward.

It was Erskine Bowles who was the Democratic Chief of Staff to former President Clinton who observed: ``We are walking our way toward the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man if we don't get our arms around spending.''

So, for me, while not perfect--and I certainly cede that point--I think the building blocks of what this budget is trying to get toward is a sustainable economy.

How do you have a sustainable economy?

Many of the things that my Democratic colleagues have talked about in terms of education, workforce development, those things. But it is also about the foundation of: Is our spending sustainable?

You can't go on spending more than you take in forever without having bad things happen at the individual level, at the corporate level, and certainly at the governmental level.

I think it is about: Is our tax load sustainable?

Spending drives tax loads, which is interesting. I pulled a chart that shows for the first 100 years of our country's existence, we spent about 3 percent of GDP. It bumped up after World War II. We are now roughly around 20 percent, and we are on our way to 30 percent.

The question we have to ask in this budget or any other budget like it is: Can we continue to do this without going to the exact spot that Erskine Bowles was talking about?

Finally, I would simply make this point: Not only can you only squeeze but so much blood from a turnip--and there are certainly limits that have shown themselves, which is around 18 or 20 percent of GDP, regardless of tax rate, up, down; there is that--but there is also this: You can pay me now, or you can pay me later in life.

A deficit is simply a deferred tax. A debt is simply an accumulation of deferred taxes. One of the things, again, we have to get our arms around is that we are stacking up deferred taxes. We are stacking up an accumulation of taxes with debt and deficits. This budget, I think, begins to nudge us in the right direction in doing something about it.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I want to make clear I am offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from New Jersey, Frank LoBiondo, who I know has worked with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, Don Beyer, on this bipartisan measure. I think it is one that makes sense. It would, quite simply, restrict money with regard to seismic testing on the Atlantic waters and the waters of the Florida Straits.

Now, why do I think that that is important? I think it is important because you don't build a foundation if you don't intend to build a house. And yet, fundamentally, what we are trying to do is move forward on something that I think begs this most Republican of questions, which is: Do we believe in home rule?

At home, every municipality of every town and hamlet along the coast of South Carolina has come out unanimously against the idea of offshore drilling and seismic testing, not because they are against fossil fuel, but simply because they believe that they want to determine themselves how the coast of South Carolina develops. That is obviously the case with many colleagues from Florida, who have now headed home to deal with the hurricane, and a whole host of other places up and down the Atlantic and, again, the Straits of Florida.

So I think that this amendment fundamentally is about this notion of, if you believe that the government that is most local governs best--not always, but generally--then might you not give this amendment a try, because fundamentally what it says is places like Port Fourchon are nice, but what the people of South Carolina have determined is that we don't want our coast to develop that way because of the amount of onshore that is necessary to support offshore operations.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my colleague.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I very much respect the viewpoint of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), and I want to be clear: I believe in fossil fuel.

I think that the real conundrum in this debate is who is best able to determine whether or not areas off of where they happen to live should or shouldn't be developed: Should it be decided from Washington, D.C., or should it be decided by local folks?

So I would frame this, fundamentally, as an issue of home rule, that all

the points that you are making are very, very valid, but shouldn't that determination be made by folks that are most close and would be most affected by what might or might not happen in the offshore waters off of the coast of South Carolina or Florida or Georgia or elsewhere?

So I just go back to, if we found the mother of all lodes, there has been testing out there, they say 132 days' worth of supply might be off the coast of South Carolina, and what people have said is we have a vibrant tourism industry on the coast of South Carolina and we don't think the risks are worth the rewards based on what might or might not be out there.

So I very much respect the viewpoint of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), but again, what folks are telling me at home on the coast of South Carolina is, even if stuff is out there, we are concerned about the tourism risk and we are concerned about the infrastructure that would be required to support it.

Mr. Chair, I will split my time, in the spirit of bipartisanship, with my colleague from Virginia, and I would simply say this: I want to go back to the most basic of all conservative themes, which is we believe that the individual is paramount in the way that decisions get made and that not all decisions should be made in Washington, D.C. And if folks have spoken out as clearly and as loudly as they have with regard to home rule on what should or shouldn't happen off their coast, that voice ought to be respected in Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for the way that he has worked with other colleagues in terms of trying to move this bill and this process forward. It would take Solomon in all of his wisdom to get it completely right, and in that regard, I give you due deference in the way that you all have put this bill together.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to rise in support of what my colleague from California spoke about just a moment ago, which is the fact that neither one of Ms. Lee's amendments were ultimately made in order. I have a problem with that from the standpoint of the construction of this rule, because one of those amendments was tied to, in essence, the base bill that actually passed at the committee level, and then the other one was an adaptation of that same notion.

What she is getting at, I think, is incredibly important. I think it is incredibly important, because the saying is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we have been meaning and meaning and meaning and meaning to do something about the Authorization for Use of Force in the Middle East since 2001 in terms of bringing it up to date, but we haven't, for whatever reason, done so. What she is getting at with her amendment is saying, simply, it is time, it is well past time, and I think there is real legitimacy to that point.

I would say, secondly, what doesn't work in life are blank checks. In essence, if you sign on to this notion that an Authorization for Use of Force back in 2001 will apply now, why doesn't it apply 30 years from now or 50 years from now, if you follow that logic out.

I think our Founding Fathers were so concrete in their constitutional premise that only Congress should declare war because what they knew was that body bags don't return to Washington, D.C. They return to congressional districts and States across this country. And knowing that, they said you have got to go to the people's House to have the Authorization for Use of Force so that you do not put people in harm's way without Congress debating that subject and actually coming up with a decision to the affirmative.

Finally, I would simply say this: This is important in terms of sending a clear signal to soldiers and to the public at large that we are behind them, we are behind the soldiers. We say this is what you ought to do. We are going to give you the tools necessary to do the job; and to the public: This is why we think it ought to be done. Authorization for Use of Force is about those two things.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his hard work, and I thank Mr. Olson for his hard work. They have worked, I think, tirelessly and in an awfully well-intended way to craft a balance between the different competing points of view on this whole issue of ozone.

I know that he is concerned about people's health. I know that he is concerned about the environment. But on this particular issue, I am going to respectfully disagree and agree with my Democratic colleagues to say that I think that the time to act is now, because at some point there becomes the question: If not now, then when? At some point, delay moves to the point of obstruction of moving forward on an idea that has had its different wrinkles, in fairness to my colleague from Illinois. But at some point, you have to act.

Given the fact that people's health does hang in the balance, given the fact that there are another 2,000 cases a day of asthma that are protracted, we need to have a bias for action. I think it is a time for action.

I think it is reasonable. Moving from 75 to 70 parts per billion is not exactly a gargantuan change, given what is at play with regard to health. And finally, simply, I believe it fits with the conservative philosophy that I believe in. The conservative philosophy says that my rights end when they begin to infringe upon yours.

This notion of privatizing gain and offsetting costs to the public is something I think we always have to watch out for when we talk about this notion of free markets and having them truly work.

I, as a boy, grew up down the creek from a place called Campbell Creek, and there was a chemical plant that ended up dumping some stuff in the creek. It turned out not to be so good. It made a lasting impression on me as a boy. They were externalizing their costs, but they were internalizing their profits.

Mr. Chair, I think we need to be true to that theme whether we are talking about air or water or anything else. I think that this bill fits under that larger description. For that reason, I do say, with all due respect for the hard work that has been done, that it is time to act on this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1551, and I want to thank Mr. Rice for his hard work on this bill and the way he shepherded it through the legislative process. I think it is awfully important for a number of different reasons. I think it is important for the reason of the environment.

I come from the low country of South Carolina, and we are seeing firsthand sea level rise and its effect. We can have a huge debate on what is causing that, what is not causing that. But in the meantime, there is a clear scientific consensus on the idea of increased CO2 emissions being tied to this notion of global warming, which very much impacts my congressional district. It impacts a lot of places around the world.

So I think that there is no perfect energy source out there, in fairness to my colleague. But of the available choices out there, I think that something that does address the CO2 emission question is awfully important, and nuclear does.

I think it is also important from the standpoint of base load in terms of energy in this country and its importance in terms of competitiveness around the world.

Gordon Sullivan wrote a book entitled ``Hope is not a Method,'' and he talked about we may hope for a whole host of different breakthroughs in terms of alternatives, and I do hope that they come through, whether that is solar or tidal or who knows what. I think that there are emerging technologies there, but, in the meantime, we have to handle this issue of base load from the standpoint of our ability to compete with the rest of the world in terms of baseline energy as it relates to business and it relates to, frankly, the ability to cool one's house in the warm air of South Carolina, or I guess the southwest these days.

I think it is also important from the standpoint of energy independence. This idea of domestic production becomes incredibly important given the way in which we are dealing with a whole host of different places around the globe that at times don't want what is best for America but want what is best for their region to the exclusion, at times, of what is best for America.

Mr. Speaker, this idea of energy independence, I think, is also an important consideration into H.R. 1551. It is for that reason that I come by for a second to thank Tom Rice for his hard work in shepherding this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Mary Lee Alcock Pearson, the Dorchester County Treasurer since December 2006. She died March 27 at home in Summerville, South Carolina. Accordingly, I want to take a moment to offer my condolences to a host of family and friends she leaves behind.

It was Ernest Hemingway who said, ``Every man's life ends the same way. It's only the details of how he lived . . . that distinguish one man from another.''

In that vein, Mary distinguished her life by serving others--her community, in particular. Indeed, she loved Dorchester County, and she was in turn loved back. Mary was loyal almost to a fault and certainly extended me grace in the ups and downs of my life, and for that, I am indebted.

She also cared about conservative ideals and good government. It is for that reason that I appointed her Dorchester County Treasurer back during my time as governor. In short, she was a great friend, a real leader, and a committed participant in the Lowcountry who will be sorely missed.

In her memory, I would ask that we take a moment today for reflection, and pause in asking how we can live up to the legacy of giving and care that Mary embodied. For those of us who knew her, she will be missed. I look forward to our reunion in the heavens above.

Until that meeting, Godspeed.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.J. Res. 17.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that I agree with what every Republican speaker has said thus far on the need to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. I want to say how much I admire the Speaker and the leadership team, President Trump and his team, Chairwoman Black, and others on the Budget Committee for what they have brought to bear.

My simple question is one of timing. What I tell my boys consistently is: If you don't know, you don't go.

One of the things that I think we have to really look at in this bill is one of process. It does do a lot of good things, as has been pointed out by the Republican speakers, but it still leaves in place community rating. It leaves in place the architecture, I think, of a flawed bill that came with the Affordable Care Act.

The question is: Can we build on top of that to do the very good things that are talked about in this bill, or do we take just a little bit more time to make certain that we have it right?

I think that when you look at this notion of lowering premiums, look at it like rent control in New York. Rent control in New York has done a lot of good for some folks, but it has hurt a lot of others in the process.

The question we fundamentally have to ask ourselves is: At this juncture, can we make the changes necessary?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 637.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of our friend and colleague, Eni F. H. Faleomavaega of American Samoa, who passed away on Wednesday, February 22, 2017. He was the longest serving delegate to the House of Representatives, and I had the honor of serving with him over the past few years and when I was first in Congress from 1995 to 2001. It was at the beginning of that chapter that we, freshman members of the class of 1994, soon realized what a wise man he was, and we often looked to him for wisdom and institutional knowledge throughout the years we served together. I will miss that, and I know all of us here in the House extend our deepest sympathies to his wife, Hinanui Hunkin, their 10 children, and their 15 grandchildren. Know that you remain in our thoughts and prayers and that we grieve with you.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with the greatest respect for my colleague from the District of Columbia and her passion on this subject and the bill that she has introduced. I rise with equal respect for my colleague, Chairman Barletta, and the way in which he has walked this bill through the process, but I am going to oppose this bill. I am going to do so on the basis of process. I thought it important to explain why, given, I think, the amount of energy that has gone into the bill and the fact that I wasn't able to voice a vote against it when it was voice voted at the committee level.

I do so because I think that blank checks rarely work out well for the

taxpayer. In fairness to the bill, it is not a blank check. The bill is actually prescribed in three different ways--the way in which it will impact Federal buildings. My problem, though, is on methodology in that the General Services Administration that ultimately gave the numbers to the CBO on which they base their score did not get in final form how many Federal buildings we are talking about. I think that leaves, therefore, something of an open end as to what this bill will ultimately cost; and that then goes to impact the very children for whom the breastfeeding will take place.

A child born in America today is going to inherit a giant liability from the Federal Government in terms of the cost of our Federal Government. By accountants from both the left and the right, they have said what we have in place is not sustainable. Therefore, I think it is very important, from a process standpoint, that we look at a final form number on any of these bills that we throw out and we prescribe, regardless of, again, how well-meaning they are and how measured they are, which is certainly the case with this bill.

I wanted to stand to give a quick explanation. I thank the gentleman for the time.