Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I understand our Republican colleagues are

about to head off to their annual retreat in Cambridge, Maryland, to discuss their priorities for the year, including whether to raise the debt ceiling or not. My hope is that the majority party listens to Speaker Boehner on the debt ceiling. Earlier this month, he said:

All I know is we should not default on our debt; we

shouldn't even get close to it.

The Speaker understands that America pays its bills. Good for him. The Speaker also understands that even the threat of default will harm the American economy. And he is right. The Speaker understands that holding hostage America's full faith and credit is a dead-end plan for his party and for America.

Speaker Boehner, I surely hope that you prevail on the majority party. America is not a deadbeat Nation. America pays its bills.

Mr. Speaker, we serve in an imperfect Congress, and we are voting on an imperfect farm bill. In some cases, we spend far too much needlessly and irresponsibly, and in some cases we spend far too little unwisely and irresponsibly. But a 5-year farm bill is absolutely crucial to America, and it is crucial to Vermont dairy farmers.

This bill takes three important steps for dairy farmers in Vermont and throughout the country:

One, it creates a modern-day insurance program which protects farmers against the wild swings in feed prices which are totally out of their control;

Two, it protects taxpayers, as well as farmers, by limiting insurance to a farmer's base production; and

Three, finally, it gives USDA the tools to intervene if dairy prices drop dramatically.

Mr. Speaker, with its faults and imperfections, America does need a new farm bill. Agriculture is changing all around us. Local food is a growing sector in my State. The organic sector is booming, and people are much more aware of their food and farms. This farm bill invests in local foods, provides insurance to small farmers, and puts organic farming on a strong footing for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2014 Farm Bill. I served on the House Agriculture Committee through the 112th Congress, when the Agriculture Committee began its farm bill deliberations and wrote its first version of the farm bill, including the nutrition title. I am very familiar with the changes to the nutrition title in the final conference agreement. This bill represents an imperfect but bi-partisan and bi- cameral compromise. While I am disappointed that the Conferees were not able to make new investments in SNAP to help the struggling families in Vermont and around this country put food on the table, the bill makes some modest improvements and has wisely rejected many of the cuts in the House bill.

In fact, the nutrition title reflects the success SNAP has had providing nutrition assistance during the historic rise in need as a result of the Great Recession. Not only has the program been responsive to need, but it's maintained historically low payment error and trafficking rates. The farm bill makes some improvements to keep the program operating efficiently and to remain the lifeline that it is for so many of our neighbors. It also modestly invests in anti-fraud efforts and promising employment and training programs.

I would like to address the one significant cut in SNAP benefits in the bill that affects households in Vermont. The farm bill cuts about $90 a month to about 850,000 families nationwide by increasing the level of federal energy assistance required to trigger higher benefits among recipients. This provision changes the SNAP benefit calculation for households receiving very small LIHEAP payments in Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program benefits. This cut will cause pain for the households that will see their benefits reduced. Despite the change, it's important for people who have heating or cooling expenses to maintain the deduction they are eligible for. The conferees have assured us that the provision will maintain the fundamental link between traditional LIHEAP programs and SNAP.

For this change to be executed properly, it is essential that USDA work closely with states to ensure that no SNAP household who also participates in LIHEAP inadvertently lose benefits. Many of those that currently receive the SUA due to a $1 LIHEAP benefit may still pay for heating or cooling, and so they need a chance to show that they have those expenses. The process to do so should be designed to minimize the burden on these households.

More important is to ensure that households that do not receive smaller LIHEAP benefits are not adversely affected by any aspect of this provision's implementation. The Agriculture Committees debated several approaches to resolving this issue, and savings were never attributed to states that did not provide a smaller LIHEAP benefit. USDA must ensure that this provision's impact is limited only to household that receive a minor LIHEAP payment, such as $1. I do not envision that states will need to make changes to their forms or verification policies.

The farm bill also includes a number of improvements in the SNAP operation and administration. Like with the SUA provision, it's clear from these provisions that the conferees were committed to focusing on changes that placed the burden on state agencies, not households applying for or participating in the program. For example, there's a requirement that states check state lottery and gaming records to make sure no lottery winners who are ineligible, due to their winnings, stay on the program. It's a reasonable policy, and the conferees wisely require the state to rely on records to identify the rare instance rather than ask demeaning questions of every SNAP applicant. There are other examples--such as use of the national New Hire Database--where the bill charges USDA and state agencies to use databases, technology and back office functions to improve the program without burdening SNAP applicants and participants. I do not expect states to have to add questions to their applications seeking information on whether applicants were ever convicted of a heinous crime in response to the provision that reiterates current policy with respect to fleeing felons. Asking low-income families and seniors in need whether they have won the lottery or are a convicted murderer compromises the programs' image and would denigrate people for needing its help.

There are also some promising changes to the program for the retailers that participate. The farm bill authorizes pilot programs to test the use of mobile technologies in SNAP--things like smart phone apps that have become increasingly common in the larger retail world. This may be especially important to farmers markets and vegetable stands that are unable to install traditional EBT processing machines. While expanding potential options for retailers is important, it is critical to the long term success of the program that bad actors looking to take advantage of new approaches are kept out of the program. I urge USDA to set high retailer integrity standards and carefully monitor the pilots to prevent fraud. There's a similar provision that tests the feasibility of allowing the online purchase of food with SNAP benefits, reflecting a growing food industry trend towards online transactions with delivery. This can help make the program accessible to individuals who may have trouble getting to a store, but rigorous anti-fraud standards must apply to any new way of redeeming benefits, and it will require USDA to be actively engaged in monitoring the pilot.

I would like to point out that these new mobile and online technologies, common in the food retail world, do not rely on photo identification or other biometric information to authorize payments and maintain integrity. For both the customer and the retailer, the SNAP retail transaction should look like any other debit card transaction. Thus, I urge USDA to stop allowing misguided efforts at the state level to require photos on SNAP cards or to be presented at the point of purchase. USDA must increase its scrutiny of such efforts to ensure that all household members and authorized representatives can use purchase food on behalf of the household. Technology has made these conditions on the use of benefits obsolete in the retail environment, and so they should be eliminated from the SNAP retail environment as well.

I commend the work of the Agriculture Committee conferees to identify areas of bipartisan agreement that improve without imposing undue hardship on participating households. The Agriculture Committees have a long standing history of working together to solve difficult complex food and agriculture issues facing the nation. This farm bill is a solid step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to address the issue of climate change.

Global warming means that the planet on average is getting warmer. The evidence here is indisputable.

Global warming is also causing freak weather events that just aren't normal. These include hurricanes, typhoons and droughts. They also include the brutal cold fronts that are sweeping the country.

Some climate deniers have used this as an opportunity to assert that the overwhelming science behind global warming is wrong. The irony in this assertion is that while the U.S. has extreme unusually cold temperatures, current temperatures in the Arctic are above average.

NOAA recently confirmed that 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record. All 13 years of the 21st century rank among the 15 warmest since records began 134 years ago. On average, spring weather arrives ten days earlier than it used to in the Northern Hemisphere. While many states in the Midwest and Northeast have exceptionally cold temperatures, Alaska is experiencing unusually warm weather and California is going through a record-breaking drought. Average daily highs in Alaska are 11 degrees greater than the historical average for January.

These unusual weather events are doing real economic harm and are hurting American families. Congress needs to tackle this problem of man-made climate change head on and not just bury our heads in the snow.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bean family of Strafford, Vermont, and in tribute to their exceptional young son and brother murdered thirty years ago because of his sexual orientation, I submit the following Herald of Randolph story. Winthrop Bean's story is a tragic tale of senseless loss in the face of homophobia and reminds us of the need to end discrimination and achieve fundamental equality for all.

[From the Herald of Randolph]

Winthrop Bean Remembered

(By Bruce Kogan)

This month will mark the 30th anniversary of a guilty plea

entered in a New York City court by a man named Alfred

Desjardin, 25, pleading guilty to manslaughter-1 in

connection with the stabbing death of Strafford native

Winthrop Bean on May 19, 1983.

It was a story little reported in the mainstream media, but

in the White River Valley of Vermont it was the major news of

the year, because of the effect that Winkie Bean had on all

around him.

My own connection with this case came with my job at New

York State Crime Victims Board, where I was an investigator.

A woman named Linda Strohmeier, who volunteered at the New

York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, approached

me on behalf of Alta Varney, Winthrop's mother, who had filed

a claim for funeral reimbursement. Ms. Strohmeier was from

the area and knew Winkie and his family.

She told me of his ambitions for a career in the theater,

which was why he was in New York City, living with friends on

East 93rd Street. I knew that the location where his body was

found was right near a gay bar called Chaps, long since gone

now.

All the police of the 19th precinct in New York told me in

an official capacity was that he was indeed an innocent

victim, and there was no reason not to grant $1500 from the

state to Alta Varney to bury her son.

Another Dimension

The case always nagged at me, and when I got a chance to

speak on my experiences for a documentary on anti-gay

violence, I decided to do some research on it.

To begin with, 10 days after Winkie's death, there was an

arrest made of Alfred Desjardin, who was described as both a

truck driver and a junkie. As Jerry Orbach used to say on

``Law and Order,'' ``I love it when they're stupid.''

Desjardin left a steak knife with his fingerprints next to

Winkie's body.

But it was Winkie's story that really got to me. The Herald

of Randolph provided a lot of answers. By all accounts,

Winkie was a charismatic young man who had the great good

fortune to grow up in a primarily loving and accepting

atmosphere.

He came from South Strafford, population 1024 at the last

census, and that's about a 25% growth since 1983. It's a

community that is a haven for artistic types of all kinds,

sculptors, painters, and folks who make their living at the

theater. That's where Winkie, at an early age, developed a

love for the theater.

It was the passion of his life. While still in grade school

he wrote plays, designed sets, and organized the other kids

into theater groups. Later on in high school he worked at

adult theater companies.

Former Strafford resident Peter Smith, whom I met, told me

that his best memory of Winkie Bean was watching him build,

out of whatever scrap material he could find, a set for a

local production of ``The Elephant Man.'' Smith later wrote a

beautiful obituary for Winkie for The Herald of Randolph.

(Smith was for many years the director of the Hopkins

Center.)

Not an Issue

For most people in Strafford, Winkie being gay was simply

not an issue. That in itself makes his story unique, as most

of the gay men and lesbians I've become acquainted with from

small towns couldn't wait to get out of them to move to the

big city because of the prejudice against them.

To be sure, he heard the word ``faggot'' every so often,

usually from other kids. But Therese Linehan, whose mother

Kate was friends with Alta Varney and whose older brothers

were Winkie's contemporaries in school, said that those same

kids who called him ``faggot'' would listen to him when they

were part of his theater projects. Winkie had to have

extraordinary charisma and leadership skills for that to

happen.

Kate Linehan told me that Winkie was loved by just about

everyone in the area, and by area I include the surrounding

towns in the White River Valley. She remembers him always

having a kind word for all, never failing to ask sincerely

about people's health and welfare.

Off to New York

When he left to go to New York to become a set designer in

the theater, it was with the well wishes of one and all in

the region. No exile to the big city for Winthrop Bean. He

could have been the local high school jock hero who signs a

major league baseball contract; it was how he was viewed.

This was a story about gay youth from a small town, a story

that I had never heard before.

But on the night of May 19, 1982 after an evening of good

food and drinks with some friends, Winthrop Bean decided to

have a nightcap at Chaps Bar, which was on Third Avenue in

the upper eighties.

Maybe feeling a bit liberated and not on his guard, he was

easy prey for Desjardin who was waiting outside the bar, no

doubt looking for a gay victim who would not put up much

struggle. Winkie was stabbed about eight times and left in a

pool of his own blood to bleed out and die in a stairwell at

229 East 88 Street.

His screams did awake residents who called the police.

I grew up in Brooklyn myself, and in the big city you do

learn street smarts. My own theory of the crime is that

Winthrop Bean, because of the loving and nurturing atmosphere

he was raised in, never developed them.

Therese Linehan told me that Winkie believed in the best in

and of everybody. It was beyond his grasp that people could

want to harm him for any reason. Evil as a concept is

something that a lot of people can't comprehend.

A police tip led to Desjardin's arrest, and the case was

ready to be tried by the New York County district attorney's

office.

Witness Recants

A source in the DA's office told me that one of the

witnesses, a key witness who could have testified and linked

the circumstantial and forensic case that they had developed,

went bad on them. After that, Asst. DA Patrick Dugan had no

choice but to make the best bargain he could and Desjardin

copped to a manslaughter-1 plea and got eight to 35 years for

a brutal murder, which to me had overtones of bias.

The fact is that Desjardin selected the area around Chaps

as a hunting ground. The fact that Winkie was stabbed

multiple times could only come from some primitive rage. And

most important for me was that not only was the incriminating

steak knife left behind with the killer's fingerprints, but

in what he said was a robbery, nothing was taken.

Asst. D.A. Dugan himself was saddened by this turn of

events. In a letter to Alta Varney he wrote that ``during the

course of our investigation . . . I have learned that

Winthrop was a wonderful person whose loss to his family,

friends, and society is irreplaceable.''

As for Desjardin, he got out after his minimum and went

back to a life of crime. He was caught and pled guilty to a

robbery and got 12 additional years that started in 1994.

After 2006, who knows where he is now?

A Hate Crime

The savagery of the crime is similar to a few other crimes

motivated by homophobia, some that I handled claims for in

the course of my years at Crime Victims Board.

And this crime seems similar to one that got national

attention, that of Matthew Shepard. There is another

similarity: The mothers in each case became activists of

sorts.

Judy Shepard's life as spokesperson for hate crimes

legislation is well known. Alta Varney chose a different

route. A Winthrop Bean memorial scholarship was established

shortly after Winkie's death to give funds to students who

want to go into the theater. That's something that honored

his passion, and something I believe he would have approved.

Winkie's name should be on a list of LGBT honored dead,

right up there with Matthew Shepard, Julio Rivera, James

Zappalorti, Henry Marquez, and so many others.

Time and circumstance have allowed his name to fade from

consciousness in a way the others haven't except in the White

River Valley of Vermont, where people still talk of him as

one of the most unforgettable individuals they ever came to

know.

Thank you, Mr. Cohen. It is so wonderful to hear about our classmate. We who were elected with Gabby had a special privilege to get to know her personally and to see her grit and her determination and her gracefulness and her effectiveness representing her district, and the incredible job she did on the Armed Services Committee. I remember all of the things that you mentioned, and she had a kind word for everybody. She didn't forget anything. She was totally devoted to her staff and to her constituents. What a pleasure it was. All of us, I think, felt if Congress was filled with folks like Gabby Giffords, the world would be a better place, even Congress.

Since her shooting 3 years ago, America has gotten a glimpse into that person of character and beauty that all of us got to know as a classmate. What an extraordinary person she is. I just want to read a little bit from her op-ed because it kind of captures things. When this happened 3 years ago, she mentions that she was allowed the opportunity for a new life, but she had planned to spend her 40s continuing her public service and starting a family with this wonderful man, her husband, who she married while she was in service here in Congress, Mark Kelly. Remember when we saw Mark Kelly struggling with the question of his wife in the hospital and having to decide whether to continue to command the mission into space, and how he struggled with that, wanting to be doing what he was trained all his life to do, and be also the extraordinary husband that he was, and how Gabby was his biggest supporter that he continue the mission. What a couple they are.

And then to hear her describe what she has had to go through. She was really athletic. She rode horses, and she rode motorcycles. She hiked up and down the Grand Canyon. She was very physically fit and vigorous, an outdoors woman. In that moment when she was shot, the question was whether she was going to live. She did--a blessing for her, for us, for America, and her family. But her life then required her to face incredible challenges--how to learn things that we now take for granted. She describes:

I spent the last 3 years learning how to talk again, how to

walk again. I had to learn to sign my name with my left hand.

It is gritty, painful, frustrating work every day. And rehab

is endlessly repetitive. It is never easy because once you

have mastered some movement or action or word, no matter how

small, you move on to the next. You never rest.

What Gabby did, that was the life that was in front of her, and she had to make a decision about whether to engage and plunge forward, knowing how hard that would be, how repetitive that would be, and she did it. Of course, she has been making progress, incredible progress, and she celebrates in this op-ed that she didn't image that her stricken, paralyzed arm would ever move again. For so many days it did not, until one day it did.

So she faces life and embraces this new life that is nothing compared to that athletic, horse-riding, motorcycle-riding, and Grand Canyon climbing person that was very easy for her to be.

She had all of that, those personal qualities with this enormous commitment to public life and had a belief that what we did to try to shape public policy mattered. How you treated the person in your life, the ones you love, incredibly important; but how you use that love to try to build laws that create opportunities for a better, less violent, more peaceful society. She had the energy and the heart to do that as well. And she is continuing that with her cause, working side by side with her husband, Mark, for sensible gun legislation.

You know, when I think about what she has done, and, sure, we can have a legitimate debate about what is the right law. I definitely think the background checks, why wouldn't we have that apply to everybody. It doesn't restrict their ability; it just means they go through the check. When I consider that and think, all right, there are legitimate debates on both sides, and the Second Amendment is extremely important and we are all supporters of it, but what is the problem with Congress voting on it. Why is it that we can't summon the will to simply put on the floor for a debate and then a vote where each one of us says ``yes'' or ``no'' on that proposed legislation, background check, and let Americans then decide what they think of us, whether they agree with us or they don't.

You know, at a certain point, it is just a question of whether we will do our job, and doing our job is debating the major issues of the time that are of concern to the people of this country, and then standing and voting ``yes'' or ``no.''

I say we owe that to Gabby. Gabby wouldn't see it that way. She would say that we owe it to ourselves to take

on the responsibility that we sought when we ran for public office and took on the privilege of representing the people who sent us here.

So I say thank you to Gabby for all she has done, and I challenge us to try to do a little bit of what Gabby would do if she were here to help us today.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important challenges that this country faces with allies is to make certain Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. For that reason, I, along with virtually all of my colleagues, voted for tough, enforceable sanctions.

There is a question now in this House about whether Congress should present yet another resolution on Iran. There are two questions that raises. Number one, do we send a message to the world that Congress is not on the same page as our President and Secretary of State in their absolute determination to rid

Iran of a nuclear capability? Number two, do we send a message to our allies in the P5+1, that include Russia and China, not exactly our best of friends, but our reluctant allies who we need to guarantee that the tough sanctions that we impose are enforceable?

If we pass sanctions that don't have the cooperation of our allies, they are meaningless. So the question that we have is: Any action that we take, will it increase or diminish our strength in guaranteeing no nuclear weapons in Iran?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin regarding the not-for-profit student loan servicing provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

Is it your understanding and intent that the not-for-profit servicing provision in this act does not require the termination of the existing Federal loan servicing contracts of any not-for-profit servicers who are currently servicing Federal loans?

And is it the further understanding and intent of the gentleman from Wisconsin that the Education Department will continue to enter into contracts with not-for-profit servicers based on their performance?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify the intent of the Not-For- Profit Loan Servicing Provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 as it relates to students and access to higher education.

The purpose of the language does not seek to undo the ability of not- for profit loan servicers to continue to contract with the Department of Education. It is critical that this point be made clear, given the importance of Not-For-Profit servicers to families and students.

College education is a ticket to the middle class and the foundation of our economy. Barriers to college exist not only in cost, but in the reality that student financial aid is a complex and intimidating system. Many students aspiring to higher education will cut their dreams short simply because they do not receive the necessary support to navigate paying for college.

Not-For-Profit lenders have a strong record of providing this support for students and their families, which has meant that many hundreds of thousands more American students have gone to college.

More recently, Not-For-Profit loan servicers have received higher customer satisfaction scores during their first year of servicing in the Federal student aid program than any of the four national servicers during their first year.

In 2008, after Congress moved to direct lending, Not-For-Profit servicers were restricted in the number of accounts they were allowed to service. But in 2010, in recognition that these servicers provided very high quality customer service and provided programs to help many young people aspire to college, Congress required the Department of Education to contract with Not-For-Profit servicers.

Over the past two years, Not-For-Profit loan servicers have invested tens of millions of dollars to meet and exceed Federal requirements and to help the Federal Government reach important access goals.

The Vermont Student Assistance Corporation (VSAC) has only been servicing Federal loans for nine months. This past quarter they received the highest customer satisfaction score of all Not-For-Profit servicers and a score that was equal to or higher than three of the four national servicers. Similarly the independent assessment of the Department of Education's employee satisfaction with the quality of VSAC's work gave VSAC a higher rating than three of the four national servicers. More importantly, in less than a year, they have helped tens of thousands of the Department's borrowers who were behind in their payments get back on their feet.

Nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 authorizes the Secretary of Education to terminate their contracts or in any way prevent the Not-For-Profits from competing head to head against the national servicers. I hope that the Secretary of Education will use this opportunity to allow the Not-For-Profit servicers to continue their important work supporting students and families as they seek higher education. I also hope Not-For-Profit servicers will have access to newly originated accounts and the ability to compete with the national servicers on an equal footing.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, but I want to go through the controversy.

First of all, the argument about campaign finance reform, this is about taking money away from political conventions. The majority on both sides of the aisle have supported that.

Number two, there is an argument that this does not restore NIH funding. That is absolutely true, and we should restore full funding for the National Institutes of Health. Passing this bill doesn't stop us from doing that. It may even put us a step forward.

Third, there is an argument that the money will not get to the intended target because of the way it is designed. But if there is any expression of good faith, it is that the appropriators have made a very clear indication that they

are willing to do everything they possibly can in order to make this happen.

Fourth, it is limited in its scope and in its funds. That is true. But the fact is it does do something. It takes a step forward.

We are having an argument here about whether this is bipartisan or not. We are having an argument about bipartisan or not. We are having an argument about process. But I think if we are candid, we have to acknowledge that, as an institution, both sides have failed when it comes to an overall comprehensive budget, including for the NIH.

On August 12, 2011, this Congress voted 269-161 to implement the sequester, and in the I-told-you-so brand of argument, I voted against that. I voted against it because, in my view, the consequences of that sequester were predictable and foreseeable. These across-the-board cuts from the NIH to the Pentagon made no sense, but that is the box this institution, this House of Representatives, has put itself in.

What we have with this bill, in my view, is an opportunity to lay down the battle axes for just a moment and take a step forward. No one is here--least of all, me, where I am being used, to some extent, as a bipartisan face--to suggest that this does more than it does. But what it does do is something good, and it can begin a process, which is my hope, where we restore full funding to the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. Speaker, today, Stephen Klein, a long serving and widely respected Vermont public servant, is receiving the prestigious Stephen D. Gold Award from the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) here in our Nation's capitol.

The Gold Award is presented by NCSL, in conjunction with the National Tax Association and the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, to an individual who has made a significant contribution to public financial management in State and local finance. Those who know the serious fiscal challenges our small State has faced in recent years know Stephen deserves this award, and much more.

Vermont has an unusual, perhaps unique, way of grappling with fiscal issues. The Joint Fiscal Office, directed by Stephen since 1993, is a non-partisan office providing financial analyses to the Vermont General Assembly. It serves the so-called ``money committees''--Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Finance. It serves Republicans and Democrats. It serves the majority and minority parties. And during Stephen's tenure both parties have been in both positions.

Vermont, like most States, has faced contentious fiscal issues-- school finance, health care funding, recessions, and conflicting and fiercely debated taxing and spending priorities. Yet through it all, with Republican and Democratic majorities and Republican and Democratic governors, Vermont experienced in Stephen an assured, creative, and honest leader who helped us--through good times and bad--balance our budgets, meet our priorities, and plan for our future.

Stephen Klein's accomplishments are significant: balancing budgets in a State without a balanced budget amendment, creating a process for all stakeholders to agree on revenue estimates, and establishing a matching endowment fund for the Vermont State Colleges, to name just a few.

But if his competence earned him universal respect, it is his personal qualities that have endeared him to all who know him-- professional and emotional generosity, a twinkling smile and sense of humor, a hectic but focused energy, respect for his long serving and able staff; his humility, and his genuine respect for every legislator.

As hard as Stephen has worked for the State of Vermont, he has served in many other ways including as a Peace Corps volunteer in Honduras and the Dominican Republic, a member of the Randolph School Board, and a director of the Hunger Mountain Food Coop. Blessed with a loving family--his wife, Pricilla, and his children, Elana and Jonathan-- Stephen is a Vermonter who makes his fellow Vermonters proud.

Madam Chair, patent trolls are not about protecting patents. They are about trolling for easy money at the expense of hardworking people. Patent trolling is a total and complete abuse of the patent system and is a total rip-off of hardworking people. Worst of all, it is a complete abuse of good people who are trying to do good things in their communities. Let me give you a couple of examples.

In Vermont, MyWebGrocer is a Web-based company--innovative--located in Winooski, Vermont, with over 180 employees. They have experienced six patent troll attacks. One of the trolls claimed to have a patent-- and get this--on surfing the Web with a mobile device. This was a stickup.

Another completely outrageous example is of a Vermont nonprofit. It assists individuals with developmental disabilities. This nonprofit was targeted by a patent troll that was demanding payment for a supposed infringement on scanning technology. Can you imagine what it is like for a small nonprofit, doing good work, to get a letter that is essentially a stickup? That is what it is.

What these businesses and nonprofits then have to decide is: Do they pay the bounty or do they fight?

This legislation is definitely needed so that our nonprofits and our small businesses can get on with the good work they are doing without the threat of abusive patent trolling.

Mr. Speaker, energy efficiency investments work. A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that improving the airtightness in homes would achieve $33 billion in annual energy savings.

Across the country, 113 million homes use 23 percent of U.S. source energy, and the largest potential is in the hottest and the coldest climates.

In Vermont, we are leading the country on energy efficiency, demonstrating the potential these home improvements can have for saving money and protecting the environment.

I have introduced bipartisan legislation with my good friend and Republican colleague, Representative McKinley, that would provide homeowners with an incentive to install precisely these kinds of efficiency measures in their own homes.

Whatever your preferred source of energy, we can all agree that using less energy is good for the taxpayer and the environment. This is something we can and should work together on accomplishing.

I encourage everyone to read Lawrence Berkeley's article in the science digest Energy and Buildings. It can be found at www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Barry, we are going to miss you. Everyone has been rightly singing your praises.

I will tell you the couple of things I noticed right away. When I came, it was 2007. Many of the Members who have spoken have been here many years longer. When you went into the cloakroom, you were treated like you had been here forever. Everybody was treated the same. The goodwill, the good sense of humor, the good judgment, the sense that we are all part of

something larger than ourselves--that was something that Barry really conveyed.

The other thing I noticed, we used to have pages here. Remember that? We had these young people full of hopes and dreams about how they could make a contribution in this country, how they could make this a better country, how they could be better people.

Barry, it was amazing to watch you with those kids because you had to get them organized. They had to learn all of our names. They would be sitting there in the cloakroom studying the Congressional Pictorial, and these young kids from all over the country would be coming up, and they would be saying hi to Mr. Miller, to Mr. Welch, to Mr. Capuano, and it was such a reassuring observation, such a wonderful scene there where these kids--boys and girls--felt that they had a big job in a big institution. You could see them getting excited about public service, and you could see them taking seriously the responsibilities that go along with it, which at that moment, for them, was learning the names and matching them to the faces of the people who were here.

Barry, you were a great teacher. It wasn't just that they got our names right. It was that you inspired them to find in themselves the discipline and the strength to take that next step and to aspire to achieve their dreams.

It is a life well lived when you can treat the people in it with love and respect, when you can commit yourself to the building of an institution, that you can help leave it behind in better shape than you found it.

So, Barry, for all of us who served with you, seeing all the good deeds you have done for so many, thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished Vermonter, Mr. David Coen, who is retiring from the Vermont Public Service Board, the state agency that regulates our public utilities, after 18 years of exemplary service.

There is no state agency that has a more direct impact on Vermonters' quality of life and economic well-being than the Vermont Public Service Board. Every Vermonter and every business in our state depends on this influential regulatory body to ensure the quality, availability, and affordability of electric, gas, cable, telecommunications, and water services.

David Coen was appointed to the Board by Governor Howard Dean in 1995 and has served with distinction for three terms. As a small-business owner who keenly understood the economic challenges of everyday Vermonters and the importance of high quality and reliable customer service, David was uniquely qualified to take on this challenge. Every day he served, he brought the perspective of the customer to the many challenging decisions in which he participated. David understood well utility law and public policy, but his top priority was to make sure the decisions made by the Board made practical and economic sense for Vermonters.

David's leadership and expertise on utility issues extended well beyond the borders of Vermont. He served in several national leadership positions, including Board Chair of the National Regulatory Research Institute and President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). At NARUC, David was the skillful and diplomatic voice of the association before Congress, the courts, and administrative agencies.

Characteristically, he brought his laser-like focus on the customer to the national stage. The theme of his NARUC presidency was ``Keeping the Focus: Serving the Public Interest in Changing Times.'' He also served as chair of NARUC's Consumer Affairs Committee.

Within the Public Service Board, David believed strongly in providing staff with opportunities for professional growth. With this goal in mind, he played a leading role in the creation of regulatory partnerships with other countries, such as Macedonia and Georgia. He also recognized the value to Vermont of good relationships with utility regulators in neighboring jurisdictions, working to foster productive relationships with both American and Canadian regulators.

David's strong legacy reflects his rich personal life and deep commitment to public service. His wife, Sandy Berbeco, is a professional

artist and a passionate advocate for the arts. And David brought valuable experience to the Board as a former English teacher and leader in community and business organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking Mr. David Coen for his 18 years of service to Vermont and the nation and for his deep and abiding commitment to public service. Vermonters, and indeed our country, are better off because of his tireless and distinguished service.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, part of this rule is addressing the debt ceiling. This Congress put the American people and our economy through the spectacle of 16 days of shutdown, with the culmination being the actual threat that we would not pay our bills; we would default. That is the second time we have done that in 2 years. There is some progress in this rule because it is going to allow Congress to vote to disapprove, but it can't pass unless it gets, in effect, the President's signature.

There is another way that we ought to do this. We ought to, once and for all, acknowledge that if this Congress, with Republican and Democratic votes, passes an appropriation that has an impact on the debt ceiling, that is the time of reckoning at the moment that appropriation is passed.

What we have done is a good deal hypocritical towards the people we represent. We will vote for spending on day one, and then on day two, when the bill comes due, we will vote against the debt ceiling increase that was required by the very vote we made. That is just not a stand-up way for a country to operate. We pay our bills.

The idea that we would have a debate, as we did in this Congress, where the premise of that debate was that it was actually an acceptable outcome that we would stiff our creditors, that we wouldn't pay the mortgage, that we might forsake the 1 million veterans who are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and not provide to them the services that we have all promised, that is just not right.

The damage we did with the debt ceiling debate and the threat to default was enormous both in August of 2011 and in October of 2013.

In August of 2011, consumer confidence dropped to a 31-year low. The third quarter gross domestic product increased barely at 1.4 percent. It led to, for the first time in the history of this country, us losing our AAA credit rating and suffering a downgrade from Standard & Poor's.

The loss of 0.3 percent of the fourth quarter growth rate translated into $24 billion of lost revenue. Household wealth collapsed by $2.4 trillion. While it is true that wealth has come back, the loss of that created an immense amount of insecurity, reduced consumer spending, and cost us jobs. The Peter Peterson Foundation indicated that the uncertainty that was created was something that contributed to $150 billion in lost output and 900,000 jobs.

The October 2013 shutdown and the threat of default was the biggest plunge in consumer confidence--bigger even than August of 2011--the biggest plunge since the Lehman Brothers collapse in '08. We must acknowledge something very simple: we must pay our bills.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has put this country through a spectacle these past few months; and it was a spectacle that was based on the proposition that it was legitimate to actually have a discussion about whether we had to pay our bills.

Mercifully, we are on the threshold of a bipartisan agreement whereby, number one, the Affordable Care Act will be the law of the land, and the debate in the future is not about its repeal; it is about improving it. It is about facing the challenges of implementation. Number two, we are repudiating as legitimate tactics to get your way, by any faction--it could be Democrats in the future--the use of tactics that do damage, threatening to default on our obligations and shutting down the government and inflicting pain on innocent people.

So this struggle has damaged the institution, but the principles that were at stake are now resolved: one, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land; two, you cannot use the tactic of shutdown or the tactic of default as a way to get your way on your agenda.