Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, to open up the government and go to conference on a budget so we can end this Republican government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, often people overlook the treasures in their own backyards; and in Vermont, one of our treasures is the Vermont Institute of Natural Science, an institution that has provided environmental education for young Vermonters since the early 1970s. It has provided help through education, research, avian wildlife, and rehabilitation programs.

Thousands of children in New England have grown up with VINS and taken the lessons they've learned about environmental responsibility and sustainability with them into their adult lives.

Sustaining such a mission over the long term requires persistent work and agile leadership. Dolan has succeeded. He served as VINS president for 8 years and retired on October 1.

John led VINS through a transformation that made it more resilient. He brought renewed focus to the environmental mission of VINS by enhancing the visitors center, expanding the nature camps, and hosting regional events focused on the environment. He created new partnerships, including an expansive research and education program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dolan's leadership helped VINS sustain its inspiring mission, and he leaves the institute stronger than when he came. On behalf of all who have benefited from VINS and who continue to enjoy it, I offer John my thanks and best wishes for his future.

Vermonters are proud of this backyard treasure and heartened that VINS is here to stay.

Mr. Speaker, what you are proposing in this legislation-- basically shutting down the government and stiffing our creditors--is really stupid, and here is why.

We have got to move on. We have had a debate about health care. Some of us are strongly in favor of this legislation, and some of us are strongly opposed to it. That's a legitimate policy debate, but the folks for it won in Congress; they won in the Supreme Court; and they won in the last Presidential election. At a certain point--I've been on the losing side, by the way--it's time to say, Sober up. Move on. Get on with the program. Focus on what are the implementation challenges, and work on them together.

But the notion that we would actually suggest that it's possible for us to consider stiffing our creditors in shutting down the government and inflicting pain on innocent people--that's bizarre. It has no place in this debate. Sometimes we win debates and sometimes we lose, but either side, we've got to move on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Marvin, a disabled man from Atlanta, Georgia--a face of hunger in America.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation.

Much has been said this morning about how 4 million people will lose the safety net of food stamps. This is going to derail the effort to pass a farm bill, and America needs a farm bill. But, you know, the bottom line is this is a cynical piece of legislation. It is not about work. Sixty-eight percent of the folks on food stamps are women with kids. It's children. It's elderly. It's disabled. That's number one.

Number two, how is a person going to get into a nonexistent work program? And work is great. It's not as though either side has a monopoly on the desirability of advocating for work. But when there's no work program that a person who is required to get food stamps can enter into, it means they are without food stamps and are denied the opportunity to work, both.

So this is a political statement, not a practical policy that is going to get us to where we need to be. It's going to throw people off food stamps who need it. It creates a cynical, nonexistent work program; and it creates an incentive for States who are going to reap the benefits of lower food stamp rolls, to throw people off even further.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank my colleague for this extremely important amendment.

Madam Chair, we have a dire situation in Syria, and everyone's heart breaks for the suffering of the Syrian people. Over 100,000 people are getting slaughtered by the leader of their own government. It's absolutely unconscionable. So the questions for us are: What can we practically do? Whatever it is that we do do, does Congress have a say in the ``yes'' or ``no'' of military action?

I thank the gentleman for this amendment because there are two questions here.

One is as to the policy itself, the use of military force, arming the rebels. Is that a wise policy? Will it make things better or will it make things worse?

The second question is: Whatever the policy is, is it the responsibility of those of us who have been elected to represent Americans as Members of Congress--and we all do--to be accountable in making that enormously important and consequential decision that has the potential to send our troops into combat?

Let me talk briefly about the policy.

The military situation there is chaotic. The rebels are united loosely in an effort to bring down Assad, but distinguishing between the ``good rebels'' and the ``bad rebels'' is impossible. In fact, we are reading reports right now of how rebels who are having disputes with fellow rebels are settling them by beheading them. That's literally what's happening. So the notion that we can have a micromanaged approach and pick the good guys and arm them and not have any reasonable and, actually, inevitable expectation that the arms will get into bad hands, I think, is naive.

Also, General Dempsey, who is a hard-headed thinker about military matters, testified and laid out very clearly, if we just want to arm the rebels, that it's going to be like $500 million, or it could be into the billions. If we want to do standoff attacks, which supposedly will be surgical, that could be in the $1 billion-a-month range. If we want to actually have a no-fly zone, it will take hundreds of ships and aircraft in order to implement that--over $1 billion a month. That's a consequential decision that we can't stumble into.

Then the second question, Madam Chair, is the congressional responsibility to act. One of the frustrations that, I think, Americans have with all of us is the sense that we are not accountable. Do you know what? If we allow an action to be taken that has the potential to send troops into combat and if we haven't actually stood up and voted ``yes'' or ``no,'' then they are right. We have a job to do under the Constitution. This amendment is really saying to all of us here in Congress on both sides of the aisle that, if the moment comes when that decision is going to be made by the President, he has to return to us for approval, and we have to stand and make our decision.

So with regard to that constitutional responsibility, what is more important?

We all talk about how much we admire the troops for their willingness to sacrifice--and all of us do--but do you know what? All Americans admire the troops, but 435 Americans in this Chamber have the responsibility to make certain that, when we take advantage of the willingness of these young men and women to serve and to sacrifice, including to give up their lives, we are the ones who must make the decision about the policy. Our responsibility--all of ours--is to make certain that whatever policy it is we are asking them to pursue be worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. That has to be done at the beginning.

Once our troops are in the field, yes, we have to support them. Then, once they're in the field, we find ourselves conflicted about having a discussion about how it is they got there. Do you know what? They got there because we sent them there. Sometimes we do it consciously. Sometimes we stumble into it. That's not right. There are 435 of us in this House who are united by a common responsibility to the soldiers and sailors who serve and to the citizens whom we represent.

So I thank the gentleman as I see this as an opportunity for Members of this House on both sides of the aisle, who share a common admiration for the people who serve in the military and who share a common sense of duty to the people we represent, to be accountable for any policy that has the potential to send our soldiers into combat.

I thank the gentleman. I also thank my colleague from Florida. I appreciate the courtesy that the Rules Committee extended to Mr. Gibson and me last evening when we offered our amendment on Syria.

Mr. Speaker, my moment here is to discuss this fundamental question about whether America is going to be taking military action in Syria without any congressional debate. We have a responsibility under the Constitution.

Article I, section 8, clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war and raise and support the Armed Forces. My colleague from Florida rightly said that we have an obligation to support the military men and women. They will do anything that we ask them to do.

But this is the moment when we face our responsibility or shirk it-- to give them a policy worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. The idea that we would take military action, and arming the Syrian rebels is military action, it is intended very specifically to take down the Government of Syria--and I want Assad to go, and we all do--but I don't want this Congress to back into a policy, stumble ahead, where we find ourselves engaged in military conflict where we haven't even met our basic responsibility to have a debate about it.

We have to decide: Are we going to be men and women of Congress, are we going to do our jobs, are we going to be Congressmen and -women, or are we going to be cowards? It is the coward's path to avoid taking responsibility for a momentous decision that we know at this moment is upon us.

Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' But to have no debate, to actually once again stumble into a military action, have we learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan? Iraq right now is supporting Assad; it is supporting Iran.

Afghanistan is now, after 11 years, ripping us off as we try to bring our material home. Does anybody on the either side of the aisle support this? Why don't we have a debate?

I admire Speaker Boehner for saying he wants to have this House work its will. But I say to Speaker Boehner: give us a vote, let us debate, let us meet our responsibility. There will be men and women that will go into harm's way, stumble ahead, because we did not stand up and take responsibility. We are accountable to the people who elect us.

Mr. Speaker, climate change is real. The future damage that will be done if we fail to address it is foreseeable and predictable.

We are living through an extended period of radical weather. The weather systems of 2012 produced the secondmost damaging infliction to the economy in the history of our country--$115 billion--much of it from Hurricane Sandy, much of it from an extended drought. Sea levels are rising. This is measurable. This is not debatable. It is fact.

What we are doing in this Congress is arguing about energy policy, but we are having that argument in the context of denying that the failure to address climate change won't have serious economic and social implications. Sea levels are rising. The damage to our Treasury is rising. The suffering of our people is real. So it is absolutely essential that the House of Representatives acknowledge the reality of climate change and include that in its debate on energy policy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes food nutrition from working families.

I thank the gentleman.

This is not a farm bill. This is a leadership-designed train wreck. We had a farm bill. It was bipartisan. It saved money. It provided farmers with more security. It provided conservation and a way forward. Instead, what we have is the result of a failure of the leadership to work with their committee chair. They came on this floor, and they unraveled intentionally, deliberately and, regrettably, effectively a compromise that was reached by Republicans and Democrats who dealt with tough issues.

America needs a farm bill, not something that is designed for political consumption and for farm failure.

Mr. Speaker, in 2 days, interest rates on student loans are going to double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. It is outrageous, it is unnecessary, and it is cruel.

Across this country, the things that will happen in Vermont are going to happen to all our kids and their parents. In Vermont, 20,000 kids are going to have their loan's expense go up $1,000. That's when the cost of education has gone up 27 percent in the past 5 years. Vermont has the seventh highest student loan debt in the country. Sixty-three percent of our kids, when they graduate, it's $29,000 that they start out owing. We are first when it comes to debt-to-income ratio--82 percent. It's brutal.

What is this about? It's about our priorities. In a low interest rate environment, government borrowing at 2 percent, we are going to charge nearly 7 percent to our kids. That's almost like usury. It is also a reflection of our priorities.

There is a way we could extend this, as we should. Why do we shovel taxpayer money to oil companies that have $1 trillion in profits in the past 10 years? It is unnecessary.

Around kitchen tables in Vermont, people are trying to figure out who is going to college and how our kids are going to get started.

The question facing this Congress is, Will we have a farm bill that respects farm families?

This is about individual families that are working hard to try to survive, not to get rich.

Market stabilization is exactly what Apple Computer does. If they make and sell more iPods, they produce more. If sales go down, they taper off.

Why not give that market signal to our farmers with second-, third-, fourth-generation families in Vermont, the Kennett family, the Richardson family, the Rowell family?

All they want to do is produce good, nutritious milk for the people in their community. This market stabilization gets them out of the death spiral, where they have absolutely no control over what that price is. And when it plunges, the only opportunity they have to try to survive is to increase production. The price goes down again.

This market stabilization is using the market. It's an ally of the farmer, as it should be. So this makes sense.

And what I am so proud of is that America's farmers, from Vermont to California, worked together to come up with something that would help pass that farm on to the next generation, and it saves money for the taxpayers.

I thank the gentlelady.

This amendment is not on the level. It uses a word that is important to all of us: work.

Of course people want to work, but there is no money for a work program. There is an obligation on the person who has no income, who has children, to somehow magically create their own work program. Any of the work programs have to have some support to get people to be able to move from poverty to work.

This is a political statement. It's not a work program.

How poor is poor? This is telling folks they're not poor enough. Grind them and their children down; 1-year-old children will lose food as a result of this.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government spends more than $6.5 billion on energy costs every year to heat, cool, and power roughly 500,000 buildings and facilities.

Currently, the administration is auditing Federal agencies for cost savings and has found billions of dollars that are available in savings.

Here's how they work:

Energy savings performance contracts allow a public-private partnership where the Federal agency contracts with an energy service company to conduct energy audits and design and implement energy-saving improvements. There is no cost to the taxpayer. The payment to the contractor comes from savings that are reaped down the line.

It's a win-win-win for the taxpayer, the economy, and the environment. ESPCs lead to local, nonexportable jobs. In fact, every million dollars of ESPC contracting results in the creation of 10 local jobs. ESPCs have already proven themselves to drastically reduce carbon emissions and water usage at Federal facilities.

This is something we can and should do together: save money, create jobs, and improve the environment.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Making College More Expensive Act.

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is just not right. The Federal Government is borrowing money at 1.8 percent. Then we're lending it-- now--at 3.4 percent. If we do nothing, it goes to 6.8 percent. And under this bill, it probably will hit up around 10 percent. We're ripping off kids. I mean, we're making money off of these kids. A confident Nation will invest in the dreams of our young people, it won't crush those dreams.

Why are we doing it? You know what? We're borrowing money as a government at 1.8 percent. The Federal Reserve is lending money to the big money center banks at 0.75 percent. But we're going to be charging up to 8 or 10 percent to our kids? I don't get that.

Families are sitting around the kitchen table having discussions--if they have three kids, which two can we send to college?

Parents who thought they had equity in their home and were going to be able, after working 30 years of work, to finally take that cruise or that vacation, they're refinancing their home to help their kids. And despite that--which compromises their retirement--their kids are getting out of college in Vermont with an average debt in the range of close to $30,000.

It's tough on the kids, it's tough on the parents, it's bad for our economy, and it's just not right. We borrow, the Federal Government, at 1.8 percent, and we're going to charge up to 8 percent for families? We're lending to the banks at 0.75 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To my colleague and my chair on the subcommittee, thank you for your fine leadership and for your leadership on this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1580. As my colleague mentioned, it is a bill to affirm the policy of the United States to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet. It has worked. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Internet has been a unique and powerful driver of social and economic progress, and it is changing nearly every part of the American economy and society, everything from education to health care delivery to agriculture.

This is especially true for rural communities, where communications technology can have an even greater impact in areas where populations are small and distances are vast. The Internet enables connections from even the most far-flung corners of our country to people, goods, and services around the globe, allowing rural America to compete just as effectively in the 21st century digital economy.

A critical element of the Internet's success story has been the open manner in which the Internet is governed. Rather than relying on centralized control by governments, the Internet instead adopts a multi-stakeholder model in which all who have an interest can have a voice in the Internet's operation. Lately, however, the multi- stakeholder model towards Internet governance has been under assault on the global stage.

At the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai last December, as my colleague mentioned, the International Telecommunication Union adopted several proposals that could fundamentally alter the way the Internet operates. These proposals undermine the successful decentralized approach to Internet governance and impose a government-controlled management regime, thereby threatening citizens' access to content and information via the Internet as well as the global free flow of information online.

I am pleased that Congress unanimously passed a resolution last year urging the administration to preserve and advance the successful multi- stakeholder model. That's what governs the Internet today. That's what we want to govern the Internet tomorrow. I applaud the decision by the U.S. delegation not to sign that final treaty, but efforts to bring the Internet under the control of international regulatory bodies continues. This week, member-states of the International Telecommunication Union will meet again in Geneva to debate issues surrounding global Internet governance. The passage of H.R. 1580 will be timely in, once again, demonstrating the unwavering support of our Congress of the multi-stakeholder Internet governance model.

I want to thank Chairman Upton, and I want to thank Chairman Walden, and their staff, for working with us on the Democratic side to address the concerns. Ranking Member Waxman and Ranking Member Eshoo raised these concerns during the bill's markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We worked it out.

Mr. Walden, thank you.

I appreciate the modifications made to the bill, which make it clear that this policy statement will not implicate the legitimate activities of the U.S. Government online or the authorities of Federal agencies. Because of these changes, Democrats and Republicans in Congress once again stand united with the administration in its efforts to resist proposals that would undermine the existing multi-stakeholder approach.

I join my colleague Mr. Walden in urging my colleagues on the Democratic side to vote for this bill so we can once again demonstrate that there is support across the entire political spectrum for continuing the multi-stakeholder model that allows the Internet to thrive, which is for the benefit of every American and citizens around the world.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1286.