Floor Statements

I thank my very good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, so you are in the lunchroom at work. This guy comes in from the investment house, and he shows 18 slides about the red fund-- smiling people who are on fishing trips and on European vacations. They are really happy people.

He shows one slide about the blue fund at the very end and finishes his presentation. The red fund looks pretty good. What he doesn't tell you is that he gets 2\1/2\ percent of every dollar you put into the red fund, but \1/2\ of 1 percent of every dollar you put in the blue fund. He neglects to mention that. So people rush and put their money in the red fund.

Now, should his interest be aligned with you or should his interest be aligned with his own interest? That is the question that is raised by this bill.

The Department of Labor is writing a rule that for the first time would say that that person standing in front of you in that room has a fiduciary obligation to the person listening, that is to say that he has to put the interest of the listener ahead of his own financial interest.

Self-interest is the malignancy that brought the U.S. economy to its knees 5 years ago. People who made mortgage transactions and insurance transactions benefited them and not the people they are supposed to be representing. To permit the cancer of self-interest to invade the second most important asset people have in their lifetime, which is their pension, would be an enormous mistake. That is a mistake that this Department of Labor rule is trying to avoid. This bill is a mistake because it rolls back those efforts and protections for the American people.

John Bogle, the founder and patron of Vanguard, has estimated that nearly 30 percent of people's pension funds have evaporated because of unnecessary fees. If people want to choose a high-fee plan, that is their choice; but

they should make that choice only after receiving the advice that is fiduciary, that is directed to their own best interest, from a competent professional.

The Department of Labor rule promotes that result; this bill undercuts that result. For that reason, we should oppose this bill.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the chairman from Texas, asked, I think, a couple of very important questions about this amendment, and he really points out why I support it. First, he asked: Where is the proof that American pensioners have suffered because of conflicted investment advice?

Mr. Speaker, we can all look to the Government Accountability Office, which looked at that very question a few years ago, at Mr. Miller's request and mine and several others, and found that upwards of 27 percent of people's accounts evaporated because of high fees in plans in which they put their money in defined contribution accounts. That is pretty significant proof.

As I said earlier on the floor, they could look to the opinion of someone who is not political at all, I think, someone who is an expert in this field, Jack Bogle, from Vanguard, who uses the number 30 percent in unnecessary fees that have gone up here. Proof is ample that many Americans have rather paltry retirement accounts because of the very high fees that they are paying.

Second, Mr. Speaker, the chairman talked about the suitability standard under the securities law. That is kind of the point. The suitability standard is not a fiduciary standard. The suitability standard assumes an arm's-length transaction between people of equal or similar competence, where it is every investor for him- or herself.

The pension situation is very different. This is a situation where someone is driving a bus or building houses or teaching school or working in a software company, and that is what they do. They don't do investment all the time. So when they turn to someone for advice, they are assuming that that someone is on their side, that the advice that someone is giving them is in their best interests. That is the very nature of a fiduciary relationship.

So I think the questions that were raised point out the reasons to support Mr. Miller's amendment. There is ample evidence of harm that has been done to America's investors; and, secondly, the suitability standard is wholly insufficient to protect the interests of those investors.

For those reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I think the best way to resolve this debate is to ask a simple factual question.

There are two approaches here. The majority approach wants to pass this piecemeal bill. We want--``we,'' meaning the entire Democratic Caucus and enough Republicans to pass it--we want to take up the Senate clean bill and vote on it now.

Which of these two approaches would provide the most help most quickly to the Head Start centers across the country? Which would really help the program?

If this bill passes, it will languish in the current political turmoil and go nowhere. If the Speaker puts on the floor the clean Senate continuing resolution, it will pass this afternoon, and the Head Start centers that are afflicted by this problem all over the country will open tomorrow morning.

If you care about helping the Head Start program, you will vote in favor of the Senate bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

The President of the United States has spent weeks of his term negotiating with the Republican Party. What he has been confronted with each time is a demand to either shut the government down or default on the country's debt.

I want to put this in another frame of reference as I rise in support of this bill. On eight occasions when President George W. Bush was President, we had the majority on our side and we agreed to a continuing resolution, a clean continuing resolution. We had our many differences with President Bush over the Iraq war, over issues of health care, over issues of the budget, but on eight occasions President Bush came to the Democratic majority and asked to continue to run the government, and we said yes.

The principle at stake here is whether ``negotiation'' means you have to have everything you want all the time and shut the government down if you don't. That's not the way we do business. That's why three- quarters of the American people agree that shutting the government down over the health care law is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I say good morning to our colleagues, and hope that as we focus on the very real pain and burden that so many Americans are feeling that we can act this afternoon to alleviate that pain, whether someone is looking for health care services from the National Institutes of Health, or whether they are troubled by the problems at the FAA that Mr. Lowenthal just talked about,

or whether they are veterans or a person in our police departments or military, that we can alleviate the suffering they are feeling and we can again have taxpayers receive the services for which they are paying by passing the Senate short-term budget this afternoon.

It's pretty clear to me that a significant majority of House Members would vote in favor of that budget. It should be put on the floor. If I am wrong, it will fail. But we will have a vote. I think I'm right. I think the bill will pass, the government will reopen, and the shutdown will end. That's the way we ought to proceed. If a majority of this House believes that that's the right thing to do, the majority should be given the chance to vote on that particular piece of legislation.

I hope we can also focus on the long-lasting damage that's being done to the way we govern our country by what has happened here. I want to say from the outset that I feel strongly that the Affordable Care Act is a good thing for our country. I really do believe that that's going to do many good things for our country. But I completely respect and admire those who have a completely different opinion.

I know that there are many Members of this Chamber, and many people in our country who believe that the Affordable Care Act is very bad for our country. They would like to see it repealed. They believe it will do harm to the country. I respect and admire their zeal and their passion. This is the essence of the democratic process. We are fortunate to live in a country where when we disagree over something we resolve our disagreements with voting, with elections, with peaceful and civil processes.

But when that peaceful and civil process protects the rights of those who have lost an argument, as frankly those over the Affordable Health Care Act have, when it respects your right to continue to come back and pursue your views over that argument, you also have to respect that process in return. And grave damage is being done to that process because of this practice of threatening a shutdown of the entire government, in fact causing a shutdown of the entire government, and now threatening a default on the country's obligation to pay its bills by tying the health care debate to the extension of the Federal debt ceiling.

And I want you to think about what is happening here. The health care legislation came to this floor and passed. It went to the Senate floor and it passed. The President signed it. It was challenged in the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court said it complied with the Constitution. We had an election a little less than a year ago, where one candidate promised that the very first thing he would do would be to repeal the law, and the other candidate promised he would implement the law. The candidate who wanted to repeal the law lost, lost in the Electoral College by a substantial margin, lost the popular vote by about 51 to 47 percent.

That does not mean that those who agree with Governor Romney have to abandon their efforts and try not to repeal the law. The democratic process says they have at their means every legitimate mechanism to try to win the next time around. That's part of the beauty of American politics, there is always a next time around. But it is not a legitimate means to shut down the entire government of the United States because you lost the last time around.

Let me draw some analogies here. Virtually everyone on our side believes passionately that the Senate immigration bill, which would provide legal status to 12 million people, the vast majority of whom are decent, taxpaying, hardworking people who are benefiting the United States, we believe passionately that that bill should become law. Sixty-eight Senators voted for that law. It has never been put to a vote on the House floor. We feel passionate that should become law, but we did not threaten to shut the government down if we didn't get a vote on that. It looks like we may lose that argument. If it doesn't come to a vote, we are not going to shut the government down because we can't get our way.

A huge majority of people on our side, a huge majority of the American people, if you believe the polls, believes that there should be a background check before someone can buy a gun. Before a wife beater or a terrorist can buy a gun, there ought to be a background check that says whether they can buy one or not. Again, we are damaging the political process by this, and we shouldn't do it.

I thank my friend for the time.

Mr. Speaker, there's been an avalanche of talk from both sides, an avalanche of opinion. That's democracy.

I think there is one indisputable fact, and that is the one way to end the government shutdown today is for the House to pass the Senate bill and send it to the President. That would end the shutdown immediately.

Now, it's my opinion that a majority of Members of the House would vote in favor of that proposal if it reaches the floor. I think that's what would happen.

But it's my conviction, and I think it should be our shared conviction, that we ought to take a vote on it. We ought to let all 433 Members that are present here cast a vote on whether they want the Senate bill to pass or not; and if our side wins, fine. If our side loses, that's fine too. That's democracy.

After this avalanche of talk, there is going to be a chance, in a few minutes, for people to actually vote on this question; and this is not the technical, procedural language, but it's the reality language.

What this vote's really going to ask is this: Do you want the government shutdown to continue or not?

If you vote ``no'' that you don't want the government shutdown to continue, the Senate bill will come to the House floor this afternoon, and we'll take that vote.

If you vote ``yes,'' then the Senate bill will not come to the House floor, and we'll continue on this everlasting process of burdening the American people, talking the issue to death, and not getting anything done.

I think we owe it to the American people to all stand up and raise our hands, either say ``yes'' or ``no'' on the Senate bill. If your answer is ``no,'' your answer is ``no.'' Mine would be ``yes.''

But the way to make that happen is to cast this vote in a few minutes. The question on this vote is, Do you want the government shutdown to continue or not?

If your vote is ``no,'' then we vote on the Senate bill. If your vote is ``yes,'' then we don't, and the shutdown continues.

The American people deserve this vote.

Mr. Speaker, give us this vote.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the people that we're talking about here tonight in this debate are people who work very hard and have a couple of children, usually, and need some help with their nutrition when they're pregnant, when their children are very young. Those folks have another problem, too. It's lack of health insurance.

A lot of them have worked their whole lives. They have worked for a

small business. They made just a little bit too much money for Medicaid, but not nearly enough to pay $10,000 or $15,000 a year for a health insurance policy.

On Tuesday, for the first time in their lives, for many of them, there's a chance to do something about that. A great number could enroll in Medicaid--their whole families. Others were able to buy health insurance for $10 or $15 a week to cover themselves and their families.

This whole government shutdown is about shutting down that opportunity for them to buy health care. So all these crocodile tears tonight about these families, the reality is we wouldn't be having this debate if there wasn't a compulsion on the majority side of the aisle to kill the Affordable Care Act.

You are not going to be able to.

Mr. Speaker, if the bills that are on the floor today pass unanimously--which they won't--here is what happens next. They go to the Senate, the Senate maybe takes them up, maybe doesn't take them up, passes them, maybe doesn't pass them, and this whole charade continues.

If you want to get the veterans programs funded today, if you want to get the programs for the parks funded today, if you want to get the NIH funded today, there is a way to do it. It is to take up the bill that the Senate has passed, that the President says he will sign, that at least 14 Members of the majority have said publicly they will vote for--I think it is many, many more than that--put it on the floor and take a vote. That is the way to do this. That bill would go directly to the desk of the President of the United States. Before the day is over the government would be funded.

If that is what you really want to do, you would put that bill on the floor, and we would take a vote on it. I would just ask any Member of the majority to tell us why we can't do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the principle of germaneness is that the underlying subject matter of the bill has to be the subject matter of the motion to recommit.

We have heard repeatedly from the offerers of this bill that they believe it is necessary to fund what they view as vitally important services for the United States of America. We have a difference of opinion. We think everything in the budget in the Senate CR is vital for the United States of America. We think it all should be funded.

Now, our view, our concept of what is vital is different than theirs. But if the germane issue here is funding what is vital, then why isn't the motion to recommit germane?

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone here would like to be sure that those World War II veterans can see that memorial. And the way to do that is to put the Senate bill on the floor and pass it right now, which is what would happen. Before the clock strikes midnight, the government shutdown would be over.

Now if the majority persists with this charade, here's what will happen: I'm skeptical that this bill will pass. But if it does, it will go to the Senate, and they start all over again on their mystical magical Senate procedures. Maybe it goes somewhere and maybe it doesn't. Maybe someone filibusters it maybe they don't. If you are serious about opening up the monuments, opening up the NIH, opening up NASA, all the things that you say you want to do, put the Senate bill on the floor, and let the majority work its will. We all know: that bill will pass.

And to the American people, we say about the pain of this government shutdown: this too shall pass.

Mr. Speaker, in the springtime, the Republican Party passed a budget in the House; and a few weeks later, the Senate passed a budget in the Senate. And there was an attempt to bring the two parties together in a conference to work out the differences so there could be a budget before the year begins tomorrow. Now, House Republicans refuse to start that negotiation.

So when we came back after Labor Day, it became pretty obvious that we were going to reach this point on September 30 of a government shutdown unless something was done. The Republicans opened the bidding, as they always do, by saying, we want a lower level of spending, and we want to get rid of the health care bill. What's happened since then between the House and the Senate is the Senate has said, all right; we'll take the lower level of spending, but we'll keep the health care bill. You get one thing you want; you don't get both things you want. That's the compromise. Now, we could be voting on that compromise this evening and end the government shutdown because if it were on the floor, it would pass.

I thank the gentlelady. We have a chance in a couple of minutes to make that happen.

If the Members vote ``no'' on the question that is about to come up, it will have the practical effect of getting rid of this proposal and putting on the House floor the Senate bill that could pass and end the government shutdown.

Let's vote on the compromise. Let's give everyone here the chance to let the people work their will and end this ridiculous government shutdown that looms over the country.

Mr. Speaker, over 3 years ago, the House and Senate approved and the President signed the Affordable Care Act. Our friends on the other side said it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said they were wrong.

They nominated a candidate for President of the United States who said that if he was elected, the first thing he would do would be to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The voters said that was wrong.

And tonight their obsession continues, and they have shut down the United States Government because of that obsession. The American people rise up and join us in saying, you were wrong twice before, and you are wrong again this time. This is the wrong thing to do for the American public.

There's a way out of this debacle. It's to put on the House floor a bill that passed the United States Senate, that the President said he would sign, that most of us believe a majority of this House would vote for right now.

So I want to ask the chairman of the Rules Committee if he would agree with me that the right and decent thing to do would be to put on this floor right now the Senate bill so that we can have an up-or-down vote.

Will the chairman agree to do that?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, will the chairman agree that the fair thing to do would be to put the Senate bill on the floor so that each Member could cast an up-or-down vote?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the Senate passed a bill to keep the government running at your numbers that you wanted in budget.

We are asking, give every Member of this House a fair up-or-down vote on that bill. Will you do that?

I yield to the gentleman.

My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, when people in politics don't want to say ``yes'' or ``no,'' they just keep talking.

We could do a lot more tonight than just keep talking. We could cast a vote that would say to the American taxpayers, the services you are still paying for you're going to get tomorrow morning. The absence of that vote from the majority should tell you all you need to know. They are afraid to put that vote on the floor because they would lose.

Well, the American people are losing because of their bankrupt and invalid choice.

Mr. Speaker, imagine you lived in a town where the mayor and the council were fighting over a tax increase of the budget, and the mayor of the town said: If I don't get my way, I'm going to stop paying the police department, close the schools, turn off the street lights and not pick up the trash. That mayor would get recalled by the end of the week.

That is what the Republican majority is doing to the country here tonight. They made it very clear they don't like the Affordable Care Act. Forty-six times they voted to repeal it.

Now they're saying something a little bit different. They're saying to the country: you can either have a budget that makes the country run without the Affordable Care Act, or you can't have a country with a budget that runs.

This is not the way to legislate; this is not the way to do the people's business. We should have the Senate bill on the floor and vote on it. This will surely cause a shutdown of the government.

It is an outrage, it is an abandonment of responsibility, and all Members should oppose these amendments so we can keep this government open.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Frank Fulbrook. Mr. Fulbrook was a committed city advocate and a valuable member of our community. Mr. Fulbrook leaves behind a loving family, caring friends, and even more admirers.

Mr. Fulbrook always spoke his mind. He was a steadfast defender of his principles, and a tireless crusader against laws and proposals he opposed. Although Mr. Fulbrook didn't receive a law degree, his passion for the law and extensive legal knowledge allowed him to write many legal briefs and file several lawsuits.

Mr. Fulbrook left an indelible mark on Camden, primarily through local government. He believed everyone had a right to have their opinion heard, but was a fearsome debater and powerful advocate for his causes. There was nothing he cared more about then his fellow Camdenites.

Mr. Fulbrook also served on the Camden zoning board, the city's library board, and was a gracious landlord who rented to students looking to live in the city.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fulbrook was a role model for all of the people in the first Congressional District of New Jersey. His dedication to our city inspired many, including me, to strive to be better public servants. I rise with the rest of South Jersey to honor Frank Fulbrook for his outstanding commitment to our community. I wish Frank's family the best; he will surely be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Salvatore A. Cellucci. Mr. Cellucci was an outstanding public servant and a valuable member of our community. He was a loving family man, coming from a large family of distinguished veterans. He truly understood the meaning of service to one's country.

Mr. Cellucci was an early pioneer in the Information Technology field. His keen intellect and expertise enabled our country to benefit from the early days of Electronic Data Processing, which is vital to the protection of our nation. Mr. Cellucci also worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Strategic Air Command, NORAD, the government of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. His leadership in the transformational deployment of advanced computer systems enabled government and military leaders to reach critical decisions faster and more effectively than previously thought possible.

Mr. Cellucci's professional accomplishments were only matched by his steadfast commitment to helping those less fortunate in our community. He participated in numerous organizations and activities to forge positive relationships between people of different religious faiths.

Mr. Speaker, Salvatore Cellucci is a role model for all of the people in the first Congressional District of New Jersey. His dedication to our country inspired many to serve our nation with distinction. I rise with the rest of South Jersey to honor Salvatore Cellucci for his outstanding commitment to his community. I offer Mr. Cellucci's family my condolences in their time of mourning; he will surely be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I have not had Bob Woodward in my office, but I have had in my office a guy who remodels kitchens for a living. He told me that, even though the economy has picked up a little bit, it's still not as good as it needs to be, and his concern is the one that I bring to the floor here today.

I believe that the majority is putting the country on the perilous path to a government shutdown with this vote, and the government shutdown is bad enough. It's bad enough that, on October 1, I think it's now likely that the people who inspect our food, that the people who now help pursue criminals at the FBI and that the people who run our National Guard Armories won't be showing up for work because of the government shutdown. That's bad enough. The problem here is not just a government shutdown--it's a shutdown of the economy. That's what this causes.

The way the American economy works is, when a person at the USDA or the FBI gets a paycheck, he goes out and he has his kitchen remodeled. The kitchen remodeler is then more likely to buy a house, so the real estate broker is more likely to earn a commission. Then she is more likely to buy a car, so the car salesman is more likely to earn his commission, and he's more likely to go buy a refrigerator. The person running the appliance store is more likely to hire more people at the store, and more truck drivers have work in delivering the appliances. On it goes or on it doesn't go.

When the sequester was locked in, economists in this country predicted that a third of the projected economic growth wouldn't happen. They were right. When the latest growth figures came out, instead of growing at about 2.5 percent, the economy grew at 1.7. It's not a mystery as to why. The problem here is not simply the government shutdown--it's the shutdown of the economy that this represents. This bill will probably pass the House. It will not pass the Senate. It represents an obsession with the health care law rather than good faith negotiation.

We should begin those good faith negotiations right now. We should have on the floor right now a proposal that Mr. Van Hollen has made for a very long time that says: let's get rid of the sequester for a period of time; let's not lay off the person at the National Guard Armory or the FBI or the USDA; and let's replace the spending cuts with a fair and honest set of proposals that would include things like taking tax breaks away from oil companies that are making billions of dollars a year.

We are not getting a chance to vote on that today or tomorrow, and I suspect I know the reason why--because it would pass. It would keep the government running. It would further reduce the deficit. It would put more Americans back to work--but it doesn't fit the political script of the majority.

Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.