John Delaney

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call No. 443 through No. 445. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 443, I would have voted aye; had I been present to vote on roll call No. 444, I would have voted aye; and had I been present to vote on roll call No. 445, I would have voted aye

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, this week we have seen firsthand another example of how government inaction is failing the American people. With preexisting conditions at risk, hospitals are being forced to take on drug companies alone without any action from their Congress, and we continue to have a staggering mental health crisis in this country. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 75 percent of the American people want preexisting conditions to be protected, conditions like asthma, mental health, cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer's, MS, Crohn's, colitis, surgery, and pregnancy--yes, pregnancy. Are we really going to allow women to be charged more for their healthcare because they want to be mothers? With out-of-control drug prices, 90 percent of the American people agree that we should be allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower those prices and stop the wealth transfer from the taxpayers of the U.S. to the shareholders of these companies. But that is not taking place. I, for one, am tired of Congress' inaction. This week, I introduced a letter, a bipartisan letter, to ask for additional funding to expand programs for mental health education, treatment, and suicide prevention. Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of the American people believe more mental health support should be provided to our youth, and the funding requested in this letter will do just that. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for joining me in their work and strongly encourage the rest of the Congress to start acting on these important issues.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, the scientists have spoken. Climate change is happening, human behavior is contributing to it, and it is a long- term threat to our prosperity and our national security. But climate change is also the ultimate, very large problem that moves very slowly, which makes it particularly poorly matched with the political system we have today. And what causes me great concern is when wrongheaded resolutions which I oppose--and I oppose the rule associated with it--are put to the floor of this House to discourage this House from proposing the most effective and most successful way of dealing with climate change, which is to put a price on carbon. We can take all of those revenues and return them to the American people. We can wall them off from government spending. There is a whole variety of approaches we could take to ensure that the revenues generated from taxing carbon pollution are returned to the American people. As a Congress, wouldn't we rather tax pollution than tax hardworking Americans? That is what a carbon tax will do. I encourage my colleagues to reject this resolution and allow us to have the real debate the American people deserve on this floor.

Mr. DELANEY

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

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their support of our veterans and for our servicemen and -women. I would also like to thank the cosponsors of this amendment with me, Debbie Dingell of Michigan, Don Young of Alaska, Ann Wagner of Missouri, Darren Soto of Florida, and Peter Welch of Vermont, for their bipartisan efforts in placing something as important as Fisher House Foundation far above politics. Fisher House provides 100 percent free lodging for military families, allowing families to stay together while their loved ones are being taken care of in a VA Hospital or military facility. On any given night, up to 1,000 families are staying in one of the 76 Fisher Houses in districts all across this country, and their need is only growing. This effort that is the subject of this amendment will help Fisher House build new homes and serve more of our military families. Fisher House has served over 335,000 families thus far and provided $407 million in estimated out-of-pocket savings on lodging and transportation to our military families. Looking ahead, they have eight houses already under construction and have identified 20 more locations in need of their support in their pipeline. Fisher House is a highly rated nonprofit, having received an A-plus rating from CharityWatch and awarded the Independent Charities Seal of Excellence. Most importantly, it is a beloved institution throughout our military and veteran communities. This amendment increases Federal support for Fisher House from $5 million to $10 million. It has strong bipartisan support and is a good example of the things we can do if we work together. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this program. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my friend.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I want them to have one visual in their minds when they think about it. Prior to the Fisher House--which, again, is a public- private partnership; the government money is leveraged with third-party donations--prior to the Fisher House, family members of our veterans who were receiving care often camped out in tents on the grounds of VA hospitals or other military facilities. The Fisher House has solved that problem, which is one of the reasons we should be supporting it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 289 through No. 293. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 289, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 290, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 291, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 292, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 293, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call No. 287 & No. 288. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 287, I would have voted `Yea'. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 288, I would have voted `Yea'.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call No. 183. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 183, I would have voted `YEA'.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on roll call No. 168. Had I been present to vote on roll call No. 168, I would have voted `YEA'.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the balanced budget amendment, which, in my judgment, is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen since I have been in the Congress. First, it will act as a doomsday machine, destroying critical programs like Social Security, Medicare, investments in our infrastructure, investments in science and research, and investments in our military. Second, it represents wrongheaded economics. To manage the country with a zero deficit is not smart economic policy. Third, it is being presented to the American people in a deceitful manner. To compare fiscal planning of the U.S. Government to how hardworking families in this country should manage their own personal finances is misrepresenting how we should think about our government. And fourth, it is being done entirely for political reasons: to direct attention away from tax legislation that has materially increased the deficit of this country. If we wanted to have an honest conversation about the fiscal situation of this country, which is terrible and projected to be worse, we would focus on three numbers: The first number we would focus on, or the first percentage, is our debt as a percentage of our economy; the second ratio we would focus on is how much we think our economy could grow each year; and the third number we would focus on is the percentage of our deficit as expressed relative to our economy. If we actually wanted to work together, if the majority and the minority wanted to work together and put together a fiscal plan for this country that was responsible, that represented smart economics, allowed us to invest in our country, and put us on a trajectory where the debt, as a percentage of our economy, would go down over time and return to normal levels, then we would be talking about how do we come up with a budget that had deficits on an annual basis of minus 1.5 to 2 percent. That wouldn't put us in a position where we have to slash so many important government programs because this government has insufficient tax revenues. In fact, our tax revenues are the lowest as a percentage of our economy that they have been in 50 years. But if we actually wanted to have a real conversation about putting this country on an appropriate kind of long-term fiscal trajectory, we would work towards 2 percent deficits. Because if, in fact, our economy could grow at 2.5 percent a year, then, by definition, the debt as a percentage of our economy would go down; and it would go down by setting realistic goals that don't represent inappropriate cuts to core government programs like Medicare and Social Security and our defense spending and our investment in our country, in our kids, in our infrastructure, and in our research. That would be a conversation that represents smart economic policy. It would be an honest conversation with the American people. It wouldn't be done for political reasons, and it would materially improve the fiscal trajectory of this country.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. That is precisely what this designation does, which is why so many Democrats supported this bill, because we believe, as do many of my Republican colleagues, that the mission of FSOC is worthy and that we should be empowering FSOC to do its job and de-risk the financial industry of the United States of America.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for giving me an opportunity to rise in support of H.R. 4061, a bipartisan bill that I worked very closely on with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to partner with him on this bill. This is a bill, as has already been stated, that came out of the Financial Services Committee with the support of the majority of the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, about 10 years ago, we had a financial crisis; and during that financial crisis, 19 of the 20 largest financial institutions in this country failed or needed support from the Federal Government. More importantly, tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their retirement savings. In the wake of that crisis, it was very appropriate for Congress to do something, and we did, with Dodd-Frank legislation, which is legislation that I strongly support. As part of the Dodd-Frank legislation, FSOC was established, the Financial Stability Oversight Council; and the job of FSOC was to reduce systemic risk in the financial services sector, which is a mission that I also support. But they were given very limited tools to fulfill that mission. Effectively, their one tool was to designate companies as systemically risky to the system. So they had the power to designate; they didn't really have the power to de-risk the system, which should be their job. What this piece of legislation--again, this piece of strongly bipartisan legislation--does is effectively empower FSOC with the ability to reduce risk in the financial services system by working in a collaborative manner with companies that it is considering designated and the primary regulators of those companies to develop plans to de- risk those companies. Mr. Speaker, wouldn't we be better off with a financial services system that has less risk in it, fewer companies that are considered systemically risky in substance, as opposed to having a system that is inherently more risky or has greater risk and has more companies designated? In other words, designation doesn't, in and of itself, reduce risk. What reduces risk is primary regulators working with FSOC and companies that it deems potentially worthy of designation to develop strategies and plans to de-risk those companies. That is precisely what this legislation does.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 646, No. 647, No. 648, and No. 649. Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 646, I would have voted AYE; had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 647, I would have voted AYE; had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 648, I would have voted NO; and had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 649, I would have voted YEA.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 638 and No. 639. Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 638, I would have voted `YEA'. Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 639, I would have voted `YEA'.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 623, No. 624, and No. 625. Had I been present, on Roll Call No. 623, I would have voted `YEA'; on Roll Call No. 624, I would have voted `YEA'; and on Roll Call No. 625, I would have voted `NAY'.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 607, No. 608, and No. 609. Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 607, I would have voted YEA; Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 608, I would have voted YEA; Had I been present to vote on Roll Call No. 609, I would have voted NAY.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Mr. John C. Coughlin on his retirement after an accomplished career, having served as a federal employee for 28 years. Mr. Coughlin was born and raised in Bethesda, Maryland. He received his Bachelor of Science Degree from the United States Naval Academy, was commissioned as an Ensign in the U.S. Navy, and served in the Navy's Aviation and Intelligence Office Program as a Command Pilot and Program Manager. After serving his country, Mr. Coughlin joined the Department of Energy in 1989, where he began an impressive career working with the Department's radiological emergency response assets. He served in various prestigious capacities, including the Director of the Office of Emergency Operations and Response, the Special Assistant to the Office of Self-Assessment and Emergency Management, the Director of the Threat Assessment Division for the Department's Programmatic and Nuclear Threat Programs, the first Director of the Office of Emergency Planning Preparedness and Operations here, within the U.S. House of Representatives, and most recently, the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for the U.S. House of Representatives. His work over the past 28 years has greatly benefitted our nation's security and preparedness in the event of an emergency, and we are grateful for all he's done to ensure the safety and readiness of our country. Mr. Coughlin has had an outstanding career in public service, and I am pleased to recognize him both as an upstanding citizen and an exemplary resident of Maryland's 6th District. I congratulate Mr. Coughlin on a successful and impactful career and wish him all the best during his well-deserved retirement

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, during the financial crisis, 19 of the 20 largest financial institutions in the United States either required a bailout or a significant investment by the taxpayers. Clearly, reform was needed, and Dodd-Frank was that reform. Since Dodd-Frank was put in place, consumer protections have improved materially, the banking system is safer and more sound, and our banks and our markets have far outpaced their international competitors. Dodd-Frank is working. Is it a perfect piece of legislation? Of course not. Anytime Congress does something large and transforms an entire industry, we should sign up as a body for 10 years of fixes, which is what we have not done, and we have let the American people down. Are we fixing Dodd-Frank today? No. We are pursuing a misguided and time-consuming and wasteful repeal effort. I urge my colleagues to reject the CHOICE Act, and I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats on bipartisan reforms to Dodd-Frank that build on its strength and solve and improve weaknesses in the legislation.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding me this time, the vice ranking member of our committee, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), my good friend, for cosponsoring this legislation with me. I do rise in support of H.R. 1343, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a very simple piece of legislation. The chairman of the committee said it was a simple piece of legislation. It is very straightforward. It simply raises the threshold as to the amount of stock a private corporation can give its employees, from $5 million to $10 million, without triggering additional disclosure. What this bill is not about is rolling back disclosure because, as a practical matter, it simply defines the threshold as to when additional disclosure is required. That threshold was originally established in 1988 at $5 million. Five million dollars was good in 1988; it is no longer good in 2017. We have simply escalated that amount by inflation, and we have come up with the number $10 million, which is proposed in the legislation. One of the reasons this legislation does not roll back disclosures, which is a myth that I intend to debunk here this afternoon, is because, as a practical matter, what corporations will do is, in fact, not give additional stock to their employees if, in fact, it triggers additional disclosures. That is what actually happens in the private market is this threshold defines the amount of stock that a company will, in fact, give to its employees in any given year; and, if we don't raise the cap from $5 million to $10 million, we are effectively preventing companies from allowing their employees to share in stock ownership. Private companies make decisions, Mr. Speaker, to stay private for many reasons: either because they are too small and they don't want to go public; or they don't want to, in fact, disclose their confidential information; or they don't want the costs or burdens of being a public company; or because they don't want to give up control. Whatever reason they have, it is a very important decision for a private company to stay private and not go public. The current threshold of $5 million effectively forces a company to make the kind of disclosures it would have to make as a public company if it elects to give more than $5 million of stock to its employees. We, as policymakers, should encourage more employee ownership in the markets because it is good for both the corporations and the employees. It is good for the corporations because it creates a better culture. It allows the management team and the employees of the company to have a more long-term perspective, and it reduces turnover, which is one of the highest costs that companies have. So it is very good for the companies. But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, it is even better for the employees. The data suggest that companies that have high employee ownership are much less likely to lay off their employees during a recession. So it creates, effectively, better retention, which is obviously in the interest of employees. But the other thing it does--and I think this is the most important point--is it encourages kind of an inclusive capitalism whereby workers actually own more of the U.S. economy. This is something, as Democrats, we should care about, in particular, because we have talked for many years about how the growth in the U.S. economy and the increases in productivity have disproportionately gone to capital and not to workers. We believe there are many reasons this has occurred, but one of the things we should be advocating for, strongly, is increasing workers' ownership of capital. It will inevitably lead to more savings among workers, and it will start balancing out the distribution of profits in society. One of the ways we do that is to eliminate the barriers for companies to issue stock to their employees, which is effectively what this bill does. So if we care about this concept of inclusive capitalism, if we believe American workers should own a greater percentage of the economy and, therefore, benefit from the productivity enhancements that are occurring in the economy and the economic growth that is occurring in the economy, we should put policies in place specifically to make it easier for corporations to engage in shared employee ownership, which is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. DELANEY. I had firsthand experience with this prior to coming to Congress. I started two businesses as private companies, and they both became publicly traded companies. I shared ownership in those companies broadly with my team. It was very good for my business, and it was very good for hundreds of them when those initial public offerings occurred. So I have firsthand experience with this. I do think it is good public policy across the long term, and I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1343.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 25th Anniversary of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Gang Investigators Network. MARGIN is a group of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals, representing agencies throughout Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. who work together to promote officer and public safety by providing relevant gang information to law enforcement officers. What started as an informal group of gang investigators, has turned into monthly meetings where MARGIN participants gather to exchange information on current investigations, gang structure, membership, and new trends and patterns. MARGIN helps our law enforcement successfully tackle the increasingly complex world of gang violence and keep our region safe. On behalf of my constituents, I'd like to thank the entire MARGIN membership for the work that they do to protect Marylanders.

Mr. DELANEY

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

Mr. DELANEY

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