Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for his support of this fantastic bill that has been offered by Mr. Barr. This is pretty simple stuff. There are 2.2 million vouchers. 2.2 million vouchers. And we are talking about a demonstration project of 10,000: 2.2 million total; 10,000 in a demonstration project. We are talking about a small sliver of vouchers that can go to help people who are addicted to opioids, or even other drugs to, say, use the vouchers to move people into transitional housing that are nonprofit. People are making money off this. It is community transitional housing. Help them maintain sobriety. Teach them valuable job-training skills. Help them get employment. This is just simple common sense. And for people to say, I can't support it because I am taking vouchers away from others, that is bogus. There is 7 to 9 percent turnover in the voucher program of the 2.2 million, and we are talking about a small sliver to help people. This shouldn't be partisan. This is common sense. So I would ask--and I know that Mr. Barr has worked with the ranking member, and she has been wonderful to work with on a lot of issues and I appreciate her bipartisanship. This is one that I would ask her to take a second look at, Mr. Chairman. If she did, I think she would say it is a small number. If it works, we can expand it, we can grow it, and we can help more people get off of devastating drugs. I just want to make one side comment on these drugs. In my communities, it is not just individuals, it is crushing families. We have little kids who are being taken out of homes in out-of-home placement, crushing the budgets of our counties.

Mr. DUFFY. Let's get this done. If we are going to address this crisis, it is the kind of thought process that Mr. Barr has put into this bill of creative thinking, using resources that we have available to us, to help people who are getting crushed by these devastating drugs. I know the ranking member cares about those people deeply. And I know she has fought for those folks who have been inflicted with drug abuse. I just would ask her, in this one, to join us and say: Let's do a small demonstration project, just 10,000. Let's work together.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for all of his work on Dodd-Frank reform. I think it is important that we look back. When Dodd-Frank passed, it was passed with a blindfold over our eyes, because the studies weren't even done about what the root cause of the crisis even was. Democrats opened up their files and poured every bill they had dreamed of for 20 years into Dodd-Frank. And what did it do to my constituents, my small banks and credit unions? It made them shut their doors or made them consolidate with a bigger bank. So, now, Spooner, Wisconsin, the decisions of the bank might not be made in Spooner, but they might be made in Milwaukee or Chicago or Minneapolis. I hear my friends talk about banks doing so well right now. Yes, because there are people who want to borrow money, and the economy is doing so well, that borrowers can pay back lenders so they make a little bit of money. I think what is pretty evident in this conversation is some of my friends would prefer that we have socialized banking like socialized healthcare. Let the government, let the Democrats across the aisle run banking in America. If you are confused about this debate and whether this is a good or bad bill, just do one thing: look at where the small community banks are, look at where the credit unions are. They are clamoring for this bill, they are begging for this bill, because they can't comply with Dodd-Frank, the rules and regulations. It is putting them out of business. Small credit unions that care about their customers say ``yes'' to this bill. I hope, too, so do my Democratic friends.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 16, 2018 I missed the following votes due to weather delays and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 140, and YEA on Roll Call No. 141.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize an American hero, U.S. Army Master Sergeant Jonathan Dunbar, son of Bad River resident, Linda Dunbar. Master Sergeant Dunbar recently died from wounds sustained in an explosion while serving our nation in Syria. Master Sergeant Dunbar was an exemplary soldier; of whom we are all proud. He received several commendations for his valor, including: three awards of the Bronze Star, four awards of the Army Commendation Medal, six awards of the Army Achievement Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with two Bronze Service Stars, the Iraq Campaign Medal with two Bronze Service Stars, the Ranger Tab, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Pathfinder Badge, the Military Freefall Jumpmaster Badge, and the Parachutist Badge. Master Sergeant Dunbar is survived by many who love him, including a wife, a son, two daughters, and another daughter who will be born in May. Our nation's flag will be presented to his loved ones as a symbol of his sacrifice for our freedom. We pray that in knowing of Master Sergeant Dunbar's heroism, his family and friends may find comfort and peace.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Hill on putting together such a great bill, the Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act, a bill that you might not know from this conversation has wide bipartisan support in our committee, which has a lot of different views, left and right. It passed 50-10--passed 50-10. I want to talk about the Volcker rule in a second, but my good friend across the aisle--I call her a friend--is talking about big banks and all the bad things they are doing. Listen, when banks do well, our communities do well. When banks don't do well, we see crises spread across America, and people get hurt. When we talk about some of the biggest banks and making sure they have strong and stiff regulation, I would agree with the ranking member; but when we talk about their stock prices going up, we have got to ask: Who owns J.P. Morgan? Who owns Wells Fargo? Who owns the biggest banks in America? The people who President Trump had on his stage yesterday in the Rose Garden: It is truck drivers. It is the Wisconsin teachers. It is the people who work across this country who put money in their 401(k)s that own all of these stocks. And when those stock prices rise, so, too, do the values of the 401(k)s, because they own those American businesses. When you look at the Volcker rule and this ham-handed way in which it was put together and you are starting to reduce marketmaking in an effort to get away from proprietary trading, what you find is more volatility. And what you see then is the price of mortgages actually go up. Having markets that actually work is a way to get the most efficient pricing to homeowners, which is what we are trying to do here, which is why so many Democrats voted for a bill like this from Mr. Hill. I know this is not a housing conversation, but it is true that there are a lot more homeless people in America. We were devastated by the Obama economy.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I think we can't deny the fact that, when you want to buy a house, you have to have a salary. You have to have a job. As the President likes to point out, the unemployment rate for the African-American and the Hispanic communities, of which my wife is one, is at all-time lows. They have jobs. And when you have a job, you have a salary. When you have a salary, you can buy a house. What I don't want to do is what we did before the 2008 crisis, which is give mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them, and then they lose those homes in foreclosure and their lives are devastated. We want to make loans to people who can afford to pay the mortgage and keep their home. Now is the time under a Trump economy where people have jobs, income, and can now afford to buy a home.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable young man from Somerset, Wisconsin named Justin Rivard. Justin is a senior at Somerset High School and is finishing up his final semester. But rather than just spending that time preparing for his own graduation, Justin has gone out of his way to help others. He recently invented a device, aptly titled the ``JustinKase,'' that protects students and teachers inside their classrooms. The steel device slips underneath a classroom door and latches to the door's jam, locking the door in place. This prevents anyone with intent to commit violence against students or teachers from accessing the room. A teacher at Somerset High recently described Justin as having `the special combination of motivation and brains and has a motor that just keeps going.'' Indeed, these skills will serve Justin well as he continues to use his gifts in the service of others as a soldier in the United States Army. Everyone in Wisconsin is proud of Justin's ingenuity. And we are grateful for his decision to enter the military and defend our nation.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the Orderly Liquidation Authority is an authority to bail out big banks, consistent with the bailout that the ranking member voted for in, I believe, 2008, that the chairman, I believe, voted against. When we talk about those who use rhetoric to say they don't support big banks, but then actually vote for them, I think that is a hard note to take. But I rise today to support H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act, a bipartisan measure introduced by Mr. Tipton. This bill would amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978, a long time ago, by updating the definition of financial institutions, establishing new requirements for the final examination report process, and creating an office of independent examination review, giving some independence here, some common sense. These updates are critical because, in 1994, Congress directed Federal regulators to establish an independent intra-agency appellate process for institutions to seek the review of examination ratings, adequacy of loan loss reserve, and clarifications on loans. I agree that these entities should be reviewed to ensure that they are financially sound. We want to make sure that we prevent failure so we don't have folks across the aisle voting for bailouts. However, we are hearing from our community financial institutions, the ones that serve most of my district in Wisconsin, that the avenues needed to appeal these determinations are limited. The process is secretive, and the regulators are overempowered. The intra-agency review process has also been criticized as not being independent because the regulatory determinations are reviewed, not by a third party, but by the employees of the same regulator handing down the verdict. So this is the judge, the jury, and the executioner. I was a prosecutor, and when I presented a case to a jury and they found someone guilty, I didn't make the defendant appeal the verdict to the same jury that found him guilty. They have got to go to a third- party appellate process, independent reviewers. That is the way the American system works and should work in this scenario as well. Our community bankers explained that they feel victimized. They feel retribution for challenging the outcomes of these exams, and that is a bad thing. Add to the fear the fact that these examinations lack transparency, and now we have real problems to contend with which is why the solution is so bipartisan. The chairman mentioned 16 Democrats on the committee voted for this commonsense piece of legislation. That is why the bill is so important. It will embolden our community banks by creating an independent auditor to ensure fairness and transparency.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that there is an open forum for these institutions to discuss the examination procedures, practices, and policies without fear of reprisals. It gives them a little bit of freedom. Importantly, the office would also review regulators' procedures to make sure that their written examination policies are being followed and adhered to. Lastly, the bill would provide a right to a hearing upon appeal. The decision as to whether the appeal is heard on the record will be left to the petitioner. Again, you are getting due process. We want due process. That is something we all fight for. No one disagrees on that. Why can't we offer that to our small community banks and credit unions that oftentimes feel victimized? This is a bipartisan bill. This is common sense, and I would encourage my good friend, the ranking member--who I like so much--to join us and let's get something done for small community banks.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 5, 2018 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 92, and YEA on Roll Call No. 93.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 26, 2018 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 81, and YEA on Roll Call No. 82.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for all of his work and support on this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), for which my provision is made part of a larger package. I also thank the gentlemen from Georgia and Illinois, my good friends across the aisle, David Scott and Bill Foster, both of whom are cosponsors of the Protection of Source Code Act. It is a bipartisan bill. The recent cyber incidents at Equifax, SEC, and even at the NSA, has shown that all organizations are vulnerable to security risks. These incidents are a timely reminder of the risks that we face in this digital age. Given this reality, it is important for government agencies such as the SEC to rethink what they collect, how they collect it, how it is stored, and what they do with this information in the long run. The Protection of Source Code Act is a bipartisan bill intended to reduce some of the cybersecurity risks to our financial markets posed by the SEC when it gathers highly sensitive trading or source code information as part of their oversight duties. The Protection of Source Code Act establishes a process for the SEC with respect to requesting source code and other intellectual property that forms the basis of source code. It does not preclude the SEC from requesting data that it determines it needs for market oversight. It merely puts a process in place for how the SEC seeks access to certain intellectual property. Having a process in place for how the SEC requests source code and similar intellectual property will better protect registrants and their clients and investors from inadvertent disclosure or cyber theft of their most valuable and important intellectual property. Such disclosure or theft could destroy the American businesses that own the intellectual property. Worse, it could undermine investor confidence and create significant volatility in our financial markets. In general, the SEC should not be requesting source code or intellectual property that forms the basis of source code. They shouldn't be collecting that on a regular basis. Such information is generally unnecessary for the SEC to perform its market oversight function and, as we have learned from recent cyber hacks, could create a very inviting treasure trove of sensitive data for computer hackers. This bill ensures that the SEC will gather source code when it is truly needed, under a subpoena process that provides appropriate due process for the information. Under this bill, the SEC, in conducting an exam, may continue to ask a registrant for general information about a registrant's trading system or trading strategies. So let's break this down a little bit. We have source code that is highly sensitive. It is intellectual property. If you are the SEC, you can actually go onsite and look at the source code. I am fine with that. But if you are going to collect the source code and take it back to the SEC and store it and you have a whole bunch of intellectual property from American businesses stored at the SEC, this is one-stop shopping for hackers. You have just got to do it once. Get in the SEC and you get it all. My friend across the aisle, the ranking member, wants to talk about volatility. Wait and see if there is an SEC hack where they get all this information, all this source code. That is a risk we don't want to have. We want due process. If you want to come in and take the source code, get a subpoena. Do we believe in due process in America? For the most sensitive data, the most sensitive information, get a subpoena and you can take it. But those are basic measurers, basic protections that we offer in America that we should employ at the SEC when they want this intellectual property that is of great value to these firms. My bill, contrary to the ranking member's point, Madam Speaker, doesn't offer exemptions to exams. Exams will still happen. Also, it is still illegal to manipulate markets. Those things haven't changed. This is just about due process.

Mr. DUFFY. It is important that we have truthful and honest information on the floor. This does not prohibit exams. This doesn't make legal manipulation of the markets. It is still illegal. All we are saying is we have sensitive source code, and if you want to take it to the SEC, you get a subpoena. Frankly, we think there are problems with that. The SEC has been hacked. The NSA has been hacked. Everybody has been hacked. If you compile all this information, the risk that poses to our markets and volatility to our markets, I think, is unacceptable. That is why it is bipartisan. I would encourage all Members of this House to take a step forward for due process.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 5, 2018 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 51, and NAY Roll Call No. 52.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4258) to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate use of assistance under sections 8 and 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 with public and private resources, to enable eligible families to achieve economic independence and self- sufficiency, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4258, the Family Self- Sufficiency Act. This legislation will streamline a program designed to help those unable to purchase a home while reducing their dependency on welfare assistance and rental assistance provided by the government. I want to thank my colleague and friend from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for all of his bipartisan and helpful work on this legislation. It passed out of our committee 58-0, which is somewhat historic for the Financial Services Committee. Now, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, or FSS program, is focused on helping families in public housing and the housing choice voucher program. The goal is to utilize a number of services coordinated through the program to help families with individual training to increase their employability and become less dependent on assistance. These services can include basic education, childcare, transportation, education, financial literacy, mental health referrals, and homeownership counseling. While receiving services, an interest- bearing escrow account is established for the family that can be used for any purpose once the family has graduated from the program. Currently, HUD operates one program for families served by the housing choice voucher program and a separate program for those families served by the public housing program. This legislation will combine those two separate FSS programs into one to streamline and reduce regulatory burdens. The bill also broadens the scope of supportive services that may be offered to these families to include attainment of a GED, education in pursuit of a postsecondary degree or certification, and--I think this is important--training in financial literacy. Lastly, H.R. 4258 opens the FSS program to families that live in privately owned properties that are subsidized by project-based rental assistance. Mr. Speaker, 4,793 families have successfully completed the program, with 1,557 graduates exiting rental assistance, within a year and another 606 graduates that eventually went on and were able to purchase a home. So more than 10 percent of the people who graduate from the program go on to buy a home. I want to leave you with just a quick anecdote on written testimony that came to our committee from the Compass Working Capital Group. It is a story about Tanya. She graduated from the FSS program in Lynn, Massachusetts. Now, when Tanya enrolled in the FSS program, she had been receiving housing assistance for about 4 years. She was working full-time and raising two children, but she had bigger dreams. One of those dreams was to one day own a house. At the time, Tanya believed that owning a home was, in her words, ``not for families like mine,'' a low-income single mother who came from a family where no one has ever owned a home. So when Tanya graduated from the program, she got the assistance, got the counseling, and in the end, she was able to increase her annual income by $8,000, improve her credit score 140 points, pay down her debt, and save $3,000. She graduated from the program in 2015 and achieved her dream of becoming a homeowner, the first person in her family to do so. She said: But what makes me happiest of all is seeing my children love their new home. Thanks to the Compass FSS program, now I, too, believe that families like mine can get ahead, live better, and accomplish our big dreams and goals such as buying a home. This is a remarkable story of a program that actually works, that helps people get from public assistance into self-sufficiency and hopefully into homeownership. I think it is this kind of artful review of policy that our committee has done on a bipartisan level that brings us to reforms that can look at the successes of a program and build upon those successes and make them work for more families. Again, I want to thank my colleagues and friends across the aisle for working on this legislation and, again, bringing it out with such a bipartisan vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly say in closing that we oftentimes find people who get stuck in a cycle of poverty. I think the goal of the program should be to help people get out of poverty and get to self- sufficiency. If you look at this program, it takes an initiative by the person in FSS to say: I am going to raise my hand; I want to take advantage of these opportunities. It is about helping them get an education. I have 8 kids, and I have a wife. For a single mom with a couple of kids who is trying to go to school or do job training or get a job, without some help on child care, that can't work. You can't make that happen. That is offered in this program. Again, it offers additional education, financial literacy training, and counseling on home ownership. If you have some mental health issues, you can get training in that. It is what is right about government, in the sense we don't want people to get stuck. We don't want people to get caught in a cycle of poverty, we want to help lift them up, and it is this kind of a program with these kinds of reforms that I think we have worked together on that accomplishes that goal: help people live the American Dream, which is get a job that allows them to eventually save enough money and buy a house. On the escrow part of this, when you get out of the program, you might have a small, little nest egg that you can use as a deposit for that home. So I think this is a great program that does the right thing. If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, no matter what side of the political spectrum you sit on, this program is making the government work for people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 770) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition of American innovation and significant innovation and pioneering efforts of individuals or groups from each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, to promote the importance of innovation in the United States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 770, the American Innovation $1 Coin Act, introduced by my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Himes). The legislation seeks to honor that which is best about America: her innovative spirit. If enacted, the legislation would authorize a program under which the Treasury Department's United States Mint would produce a series of $1 coins celebrating the innovative capacity of the United States. By the way, it is that innovative capacity that makes us so great and competitive and allows our salaries and incomes to rise. Under the program, the front of the coins would have the standardized image symbolic of liberty, and the design on the reverse would be an image or images emblematic of one of a significant innovation, an innovator or pioneer, or a group of innovators or pioneers. Four different reverse images would be issued annually, representing innovations or innovators from each State, territory, or the District of Columbia. The order of issue would be strictly alphabetical. That means the first issue would go to the great State of Alabama. The number of coins of each design would be determined by the Treasury Secretary. While the coins technically would be circulating coins and usable in ordinary commerce, there is no real demand for circulating $1 coins at present. So the demand would strictly be determined by collector interest. The program would be produced at no cost to the taxpayer. I think that is important. Mr. Himes made sure of that. Depending on the collector demand, it actually might produce a surplus that would then be returned to the Treasury's General Fund. The legislation explicitly states that minting of the innovation coins would in no way interfere with the minting and issuing of the $1 coins honoring Native Americans. Those coins similarly have a standardized front design and a reverse design that changes regularly, honoring the great contributions that have been made to this country by Native Americans. So, Mr. Speaker, the Presidential dollar, when produced for collectors, had a demand of a little more than 5 million coins per design. That seems to indicate enough interest that would and should approve this program, as it can proceed at no cost to the taxpayer, while allowing the Mint to fully use its facilities. The language we are considering contains some minor technical amendments that will allow the coin production to begin more swiftly, which I think makes sense. I think this is a good bill, and Mr. Himes has kind of thought through any red flags that could be risen by any Member on the floor. He has addressed those. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is important to note that we are using the capacity of the Mint, which costs no additional money. But as Mr. Himes pointed out, we are celebrating innovation. As a country, we continue to innovate and create in a way that no one else does in the world. It is that innovation and creation that creates more and better jobs for our society, our community, and our families. So I think it is a wonderful idea to celebrate that by way of a coin that costs the taxpayers no money but celebrates this great American trade. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.