Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Mr. Justin Schroepfer of Rhinelander, Wisconsin. His life was tragically cut short, but he will always be remembered as a courageous Good Samaritan who put the wellbeing of a perfect stranger ahead of himself. On July 11, 2016, Justin spotted two women struggling against Lake Superior's strong current. He abandoned his own bachelor party and swam through the frigid water in an attempt to save the lives of two people he did not know. One woman was saved by another bystander, but tragically, both Justin and the other woman succumbed to the frigid, unpredictable waters. A graduate of Antigo High School, Mr. Schroepfer was recruited to play baseball at the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. He transferred to Northern Michigan University in Marquette after two years and earned a bachelor's degree in accounting. With his degree, Mr. Schroepfer pursued a career at Wipfli CPA's and Consultants in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. Along with his talents on the baseball field, Mr. Schroepfer was also an avid outdoorsman. He enjoyed fly-fishing, downhill skiing, and hunting. Mr. Schroepfer was dedicated to his Christian faith and family, and was planning his wedding with the love of his life, Suzy Solin, at his untimely passing. Mr. Speaker, please join me today to recognize Mr. Schroepfer for his courageous action and ultimate sacrifice; we pray that in knowing of his heroic effort, his family and beloved fiance may find comfort and peace.

Mr. DUFFY

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

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment and thank Chairman Royce for all of his work on this commonsense bill. But I have to say I am a little bit shocked that Chairman Royce has to put so much work into this kind of a bill to prohibit cash payments to Iran, the lead sponsor of terrorism in the world. Shame on us for being in a situation where we need legislation to stop cash payments to a state sponsor of terror. Have we so soon forgotten what happened on 9/11? Have we so soon forgotten Iran's role in 9/11 15 years ago? Just recently, former U.S. Senator and Democratic Party vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman quoted the 9/11 Commission saying that there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11 and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. Iran supports international terror. They have been designated a state sponsor of terror since 1984. We know that the currency of terror is what? It is cash. They use cash to fund terrorism. So instead of saying, Do you know what, we are going to make payments--if payments have to be made--by wire transfer to some Iranian bank in Europe where those payments can be traced, we say, No, no, no; we have been so successful in cutting them off from the financial world, we want to make these payments in cash to them. It is illegal right now for us to actually load up a plane full of cash and send it from the U.S. to Iran. So the recent transaction that happened to get around that rule, the administration--President Obama and Jack Lew--said: We are going to wire the money. We are going to actually wire the money. We are going to wire it to a European bank and instruct them to convert it to cash and send it to Iran. Shame on the American administration and shame on this House for not stopping it. I have an amendment that says not just Iran, but all state sponsors of terror; and we should also include North Korea to be included on the list of folks that we are unwilling to send cash payments to. This is just commonsense American policy that we have had in place for a long time that now is being rolled back by this administration. We have had so many people on both sides of the aisle who understand the threat of terror and the threat of cash in terrorists' hands that we have all stood together. We now see a division in this House to not support that very commonsense effort, which is an effort to support the American citizens and their safety. I think this is a sad day for this institution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the chairman's bill and my amendment don't prohibit cash payments to a lot of countries around the world. It restricts cash payments to only a few countries around the world and those countries that are American designated states that sponsor terrorism. I don't mean to lecture anybody about 9/11. I didn't live in New York, I am not from New York, but I watched what happened in New York. And I think it is important that we not forget what happened, who was responsible, and that we don't lose our focus today for partisan reasons on who those bad actors are, and that we remain vigilant in our effort to push back and fight back against state sponsors of terror. And part of that fight is the fight against allowing them cash. On the Financial Services Committee--I know Mr. Royce works on this aggressively--we can use the global financial system to shut them out, and we have been successful at that. But if you open up the global financial system and you pour cash and gold into Iran that can be used to sponsor terror, to buy technology in regard to missiles, or to advance your nuclear program, that has a direct impact on all Americans, our security, and our safety. I think it is incumbent upon this House to look out first for our constituents and our countrymen, which means let's prohibit cash payments, not any payment. You can make a wire transfer that you can actually trace. But let's not send cash payments that are untraceable to State sponsors of terror. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great concern that in a mere 9 days the United States Government is going to give up control of the Internet. This is one of those issues that I don't think many Americans know about. This is not on the front page above the fold of your paper. It is not splashed across your nightly news. You are not seeing it everywhere on the Internet. So Americans aren't really aware of it 9 days before this transfer is about to take place. Now, as the Speaker knows, there are many things in this House both parties don't always agree on--that might be an understatement. The President just transferred $1.7 billion to Iran; $400 million, arguably, was Iranian money, but $1.3 billion was American money, U.S. taxpayer money, transferred to Iran, the lead sponsor of Tehran cash. I disagree with that. Some of my colleagues on the other side might applaud that and think that is a great idea. I would disagree. Or the fact that we are releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Folks who helped craft the 9/11 attack are being released from GTMO back to areas where they can do America more harm. I disagree with that. My friends across the aisle might agree with those releases. Those are some big items that this Chamber does not agree on. But the transfer of control of the core functions of the Internet is something that many Members of this Chamber and many Americans agree with. It is going to transfer those core functions to an international foreign body that will include Russia and China and Iran and even Europe, transferring that control. And let's make no mistake; the Internet was made in America. The Internet was paid for by American taxpayers at its point of invention, and the Internet has revolutionized the world, revolutionized the form in which we communicate. Not only is it great technology, but it embodies the American idea of freedom of speech. It is all open. Put out your ideas; some are good, some are bad, some are true, some are false, but it is free, just like that American idea of free speech. We have exported that freedom of speech idea to the rest of the world on the Internet, radically transformed the way people around the world communicate, and it was made in America with the American idea of free speech. Now, 9 days from now, we are on the cusp of transferring its control to a foreign body that doesn't share that same idea of freedom of speech. We all know Russia doesn't share that idea, China doesn't share that idea, and Iran doesn't share that idea. But you might say, my friends, Europe, they share that idea, don't they? Not necessarily, they don't. They have rules in the European Union that will delineate hate speech and offensive speech that has to be taken off the Internet--not an American idea. That is a European idea of free speech. But when you talk about offensive speech, offensive to whom? I could say, well, Catholics or Christians might hold certain positions and put certain things on the Internet that another group finds offensive, or the LGBT community might put something on the Internet that another group finds offensive. I am sorry. In a debate of ideas where you have a free flow, people can get offended, and that is okay. But, to shut down speech that is offensive, even in the European model, frankly, to me, is offensive. I think what we have to do in this body is to prevent the transfer. The Internet, I would argue, is U.S. Government property; and if the President is you-know-what-bent on transferring its control, it should come to this House and to the Senate. We should vote. We should have hearings and a debate. In the end, the American people should see how their Senators and their House Members vote on the transfer of the core functions of the Internet. They should have a say. They should be able to petition their elected Representatives to say: I love the idea that you are going to transfer control to a global body that doesn't share our ideas, or, my goodness, stop the transfer. Petition your elected Representatives, and let's have them take a vote. That is not going to happen. It is going to be transferred by the President--without a vote. I would ask all Americans to stand up, to push back, to fight back, and to make sure we maintain the great idea of the American and now global Internet.

Mr. DUFFY

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

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, amendment No. 20, to Chairman Miller's VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act. My amendment would add hearing aid specialists to the list of medical providers at the VA, allowing veterans access to timely hearing aid adjustments while still providing them with the same quality of care. I come from rural America. One of the issues that we come across is that many of our veterans have hearing issues and--by the way, hearing and audiology issues are increasing at a rate of 10 percent per year in the VA--it takes a long time to get an appointment with an audiologist. Once they get that appointment with the audiologist and they get a hearing aid, oftentimes they have to come back to the audiologist, waiting 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks for that appointment to get that hearing aid adjusted and fitted. Or if something goes wrong, they have to wait another 4 weeks to go back to get it refitted and fixed. So what this amendment would do is allow for our veterans to use hearing aid specialists, oftentimes in their own community, getting quick access to care so that they can hear. It is also going to free up our audiologists to do the more serious work that is necessary with our veterans. We are in a scenario where not only are we going to save money, but we are also going to be able to provide better quality care to our veterans. In my neck of the woods, if a veteran can get a hearing aid adjusted in their own community as opposed to driving 2 hours or 3 hours to a VA facility, it is a big, big deal for them. So often I am hearing stories from family members who talk about their loved one who is maybe from Vietnam or from World War II. They will sit around the table and just smile, nodding their head in conversations because they can't hear. I have heard stories where they have gotten their hearing aids and they have actually thrown them away because they can't get appointments. They don't know how the darn things work. This is an easy fix. I appreciate the chairman's support. I think we have support from my friends across the aisle. It is an easy fix with no cost. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's support. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record six letters from numerous veterans service organizations in support of H.R. 5620, as amended. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, August 26, 2016. Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Washington,

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before you today to recognize Ms. Clare Janty of Cumberland, Wisconsin for her unprecedented dedication in serving our community. Ms. Janty is the recipient of the Wisconsin 7th Congressional District's 2016 ``Paul Bunyan Service Above Self Award,'' which recognizes a constituent who goes above and beyond when serving their community. Ms. Janty has served as a Physician Assistant for over 35 years in Barron County, and continues to give back to her community through her work in healthcare and wellness. In 2004 she was a founding board member of Pink Ribbon Advocacy Inc.--a non-profit focused on supporting uninsured expenses related to breast gynecological cancers--and has served as their medical advisor since. Ms. Janty is also the president of the board of the Rice Lake Area Free Clinic, and routinely provides patient services. Ms. Janty has offered her skills by successfully co-authoring several grant applications that have helped provide the needed funds for poverty and health care organizations in Barron County. In addition, she has worked with local law enforcement to create a Children's Safety Fair. She has been a member of the Healthier Cumberland Project--a non- profit organization focused on community health--since 2007. Ms. Janty also regularly visits local schools to provide youth with personal health and safety information. Mr. Speaker, please join me today in recognizing and thanking Ms. Janty for her exceptional service to her community.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before you today to recognize Mr. Fong Moua of Wausau, Wisconsin for his exceptional commitment to our community. Mr. Moua is the youth recipient of the Wisconsin 7th Congressional District's 2016 ``Paul Bunyan Service Above Self Award,'' which seeks to recognize an individual who has gone above and beyond to serve their community. l am privileged to award this young man in recognition of his unparalleled service to our district. Mr. Moua was born in a refugee camp in Thailand. He called that camp home until his parents made the journey to the United States when he was seven years old. He began learning to read and write at the age of 10. Fong dedicated his young life to helping others. In 2014 he was elected by his peers to lead the H.M.O.N.G youth program--a program designed to help at-risk youth by teaching and encouraging other young students the importance of volunteerism and preserving the Hmong culture. He organized a local class to teach Hmong youth how to read and write in Hmong, and also organized and led the Qhuas Peb Lub Npe Hmoob Zoo, a cultural event planned entirely by the Hmong youth for the community. In addition to his leadership position, Mr. Moua has spent countless hours bettering the community through mentoring and volunteering at local organizations such as the Hmong American Center, Inc., where he assisted with the Hmong New Year celebration, and Dream Big: 2056 Scholarship Fundraiser that provides opportunities for Hmong students to pursue an education. Mr. Speaker, please join me today in congratulating Mr. Moua on his volunteer accomplishments and being named the youth Paul Bunyan Award winner. His selfless demeanor in which he answers the call to serve in our district is truly valued.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor Staff Sergeant Edward Anderson, an Army veteran of World War II who survived four months as a prisoner of war. Staff Sergeant Anderson entered his service in the Army and served in the 28th Division of Pennsylvania. After six weeks of basic training, he was shipped overseas on the North Atlantic Convoy. On December 18, 1944, Staff Sergeant Anderson was captured as a prisoner of war by German forces in Krinklet. During his time as a POW, he endured a forced march of over 105 miles in freezing conditions with little to no rest or food while being moved to different camps. During his confinement at Stalag VIIA, he was exposed to harsh weather conditions and nutritional deficiencies. Staff Sergeant Anderson was finally freed in April 1945. When asked why many of the POWs of the camp survived, he explained, ``we were all young, mentally tough, and in relatively good shape. We had a lot to live for.'' After his service in the Army, Staff Sergeant Anderson returned to his home in Wisconsin. Family life was and still is very important to him. He spent time regularly attending church with his wife and two children, going to stock car races, and enjoyed time gardening, fishing, and hunting. On behalf of the residents of Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District, I would like to thank Staff Sergeant Anderson for his time serving our nation during World War II and for the resilience he showed during the most dreadful times.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), our chairman.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment desk.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that deals with an issue that quite often comes up on this floor. It is an issue about regulation and overregulation. What this amendment would do is prohibit the administration from using any of these funds to implement a rule that would cost the economy $100 million more. This is kind of like the REINS Act, but the rule doesn't come back for a vote; it is just prohibited. The reason is there have been so many new rules and regulations that our economy is having a hard time keeping up. Just last year alone, there were 3,400 new rules--administrative rules, not from Congress, but these are from agencies. There were 80,000-plus pages of rules and regulations last year alone, and over half a million regulation pages over this President's administration. This is having a real impact on the American economy. We have businesses that are having a more difficult time accessing loans to expand their businesses, to grow their innovation, to invest in innovation and create good-paying jobs within our communities. We have an increased cost of financing business expansions and home financing because of the compliance cost of our whole financial sector. The costs have increased so much because the rules are now so complex and so many that it is trickling down to the business community and to our families. It is impacting our economy. So I think it is time. At least right now, for a year, in this funding bill, let's take a pause. Let's just take a break on all the regulation. Let's stop, let's review, and then we can have a discussion about how we move forward. But this is a pause on the big regulation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that my good friend across the aisle talks about the great review process that we have by Federal agencies. These are the faceless, nameless bureaucrats who make rules that have huge impacts on our families, on our businesses, and on our economy. I don't know about you, but people come to me and say: There is a horrible rule. Could you help me out, my Member of Congress? What I do is I write a letter. We have disenfranchised the American people because we don't make the laws anymore. We have outsourced that to the regulators. Let's take that power back. When we empower the Congress, we empower the American people to have a say in their government on the rules that have a huge impact on their lives. Let's have the backbone to take tough votes, to say ``yes'' or ``no'' to these kind of rules. But let's not outsource it to an agency that has no relationship with the American people and no accountability to the American people. This is saying ``no.'' Let's take a stop and let's reempower the Congress to have a say, which, again, empowers the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, those of us in this institution talk a lot about how America is a nation of laws. But unfortunately, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that, while we are a nation of laws, we are not a nation of rules. At least not if you are a Federal worker. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds made available in the underlying bill with respect to Rainey v. Merit System Protection Board. Allow me to explain the case and why it's relevant to the bill before us today. Dr. Timothy Rainey is a State Department employee who, while serving as a contracting officer in 2013, was ordered by his supervisor to violate the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Dr. Rainey refused, and in doing so he was removed from his duties. When Dr. Rainey invoked the ``right-to-disobey'' provision of the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled that the law only protects him from refusing to violate Federal laws, but not rules or regulations. On June 7th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this ruling. So what does this mean, Mr. Speaker? I chair the Financial Services Oversight Subcommittee where we frequently get valuable tips from Federal whistleblowers about questionable and illegal activities at Federal agencies. This ruling will have the effect of taking away their protections to stand up to bad actors in the Federal workforce. Let's not forget that our rules and regulations are supposed to be derived from law. In effect, this ruling will give permission to political appointees and other supervisors in positions of authority to force Federal works to violate the rules and regulations that Congress, through law, directs the agencies to implement. At the Treasury Department, one of the many agencies funded by this bill, this would mean that Federal workers could be forced to violate sanctions against Russia for its violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity. Many of those sanctions are enforced through the Code of Federal Regulations pursuant to laws enacted by Congress. Ultimately, Congress will need to fix the Whistleblower Protection Act. I intend to work in a bipartisan fashion and with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to fix the Whistleblower Protection Act to address this ruling. In the meantime, I ask adoption of my amendment to put the House on record that Federal workers should follows laws and rules and regulations.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank Chairman Crenshaw for yielding and engaging in this colloquy and for all his hard work on the Appropriations Committee, and specifically on Financial Services, as he navigates this last, final bill through the House floor. We are all grateful for his hard work. Mr. Chair, the amendment I was planning on offering tonight is related to my concerns with the potential market abuse surrounding the shorting of the stocks of small pharmaceutical companies. I am concerned about a new tactic by some market participants. There has been recent reporting in The Wall Street Journal and in the Financial Times that reveals a deceptive and manipulative practice by some hedge funds to challenge the legitimacy of a drug patent while simultaneously shorting the drug manufacturer's stock. These particular hedge funds game the system. What they do is short the stock. Then they publicize numerous patent challenges and provoke fear in the marketplace, drive down prices, and make a lot of money. I think this warrants further examination by the SEC's Division of Enforcement for potential violations of security law. I also believe the SEC should consider enhancing the disclosure regime for short positions. Increased transparency, Mr. Chair, could help combat these types of attacks. This is not just an issue of investigating the legality of the practice; it is also about the impact this practice has on the market and, more importantly, on the millions of Americans who need these treatments. This affects Members of Congress, their staffs, their families, and people back home in their districts. We are talking about lifesaving drugs. The pharmaceutical industry, due to its unique relationship with its Federal regulator and the extraordinary time and upfront investment it takes to bring a drug to market, is particularly vulnerable to this kind of attack. Biotech companies rely heavily on their patents. An attack that is designed to undercut a company's patents and drive down its stock will, ultimately, discourage long-term investment in innovation and slow drug development. Worse, it could derail the development of the next lifesaving cure for the people whom Members know in their families or in their districts. I appreciate Chairman Crenshaw's engaging in this colloquy. Hopefully, the gentleman will give great consideration to this issue.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I heard the gentleman from across the aisle talk about harmful cuts. When you look at the money that is going to this program, CDFI, even with my reduction, there is a $41 billion increase, or a 17 percent increase in funding. You can't disregard the money that went from the bank settlements. That is money that we should have appropriated. That has been taken from us, but we have to consider it. You can't not consider it. I listened to the debate in this Chamber among my colleagues, especially on the right, and they talk about: Oh, my goodness, we need to regain congressional authority, we want to start an Article I movement where we actually control spending. Well, hey, here is your opportunity. When the Department of Justice and the administration circumvent the Congress, we should take it seriously, and we should take into account the money that they appropriated through a bank settlement. I also hear my colleagues talk about: Oh, my gosh, we have a really big debt, $19 trillion in debt is going to tank our economy. And I agree. If you care about $19 trillion in debt, we can reduce this fund by $20 million, and still have it $41 million more than it was last year. And, oh, by the way, this appropriations is $3 million more than the President's request, so we are not harming the Fund. We are not harming people. More money is going to CDFI. It is just that we are considering the amount of money that came through bank settlements that circumvented Congress, and I think that is only appropriate. I would ask all of my colleagues to join with me and do what is right by this institution, and do what is right by way of our debt and our next generation, and make sure that we consider those bank settlements, and reduce this fund by $20.7 million. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The House Financial Services Committee, in conjunction with the Judiciary Committee, has been engaging in an investigation in regard to bank settlement agreements that were reached that created a slush fund to drive money to third-party organizations. Now, that is offensive because, if we look at our Constitution, it is the Congress that is supposed to appropriate, not the administration, not the DOJ, but the Congress. In these bank settlement agreements, you have the administration, along with approval from the judiciary, actually appropriating money to groups that this institution did not approve. So, to be clear, we are looking at funding for CDFI. My amendment will reduce that funding by $20.7 million. So before you are all shocked, let's actually talk about the numbers. The committee has increased funding by $16.5 million, bringing the number from $233.5 million to $250 million. That is an over 7 percent increase in funding for CDFI. But if you add in the money that came from the bank settlements, the $45 billion from bank settlements, this is a $62 million increase or, as a percentage, it is 26 percent of an increase for CDFI. It is huge. If we want to increase that funding by 26 percent, that is our decision, in this House, not the DOJ, not the President, not the judiciary. It is our decision. So all I do is say: Hey, let's bring this back by $20 million. That is all. And still, if you include the $16 million that is currently in the bill, and then the $25 million that they got from the slush fund, it is still a 17 percent increase. This makes sense. I ask you all to join my amendment, join in a little effort to stand up for Article I of the Constitution, and do what is right. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. It is a fascinating debate, where two sides of the political aisle have come together, at the start, from very different vantage points on how to help Puerto Rico but have consistently worked together to find a compromise that all of us think is going to leave Puerto Rico better off than it is today. I heard the gentleman from Illinois, in his fiery remarks, talking about dignity and respect for the people of Puerto Rico. He was saying that people in Puerto Rico are being treated like trash. The economic stats are staggering of what is happening in Puerto Rico: the unemployment rate, it is double that of the mainland; the labor participation rate is 20 points lower than the national average; and thousands of people every month are leaving the island because there is not enough economic opportunity. If you want to talk about dignity and respect, look at the poverty on the island. Look at the despair on the island. I mean, you have families that are being separated because they have no jobs. They can't live in their neighborhoods, in their communities with their families because they can't find an opportunity, so they have to go somewhere else. That is not dignity. That is not respect. So this Congress has come together with a unified voice to come up with a package that can actually get Puerto Rico on an economic path to prosperity. Listen, I would love if we can say to the Puerto Rican Government: You guys have to do a better job of managing your debt. Guess what. It has been a failure, with $73 billion in debt. They can't get their hands around it. The people have lost trust in the government, and so they are saying: If you look at the polls, we want Congress to act. We want Congress to do something. We can't get saved at home. Would the U.S. Congress please step in? Would you please help us out? They aren't opposed to an oversight board to help manage the finances of the island. They are not opposed to a system to restructure Puerto Rican debt, a system that, by the way, makes sure that the bondholders of Puerto Rican debt will bear the loss, not the American taxpayer, because I think this institution believes that we should have the bondholders bear that loss instead of the American taxpayer. We don't believe in capitalism on the way up, where you get all the rewards of your investment and bonds, but socialism on the way down, so, if you lose in an investment, the taxpayer will bail you out. That is not what we believe in. So I guess when I hear opponents who talk about their fathers being born in Puerto Rico and them wanting to die in Puerto Rico, I love the passion, I love the fire, but you have to have a heart and look at what is happening on the island and look at a commonsense, bipartisan solution where you have the President of the United States, the Treasury, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), who has been masterful in helping make sure that we stay on target, we understand what is going on on the island, that we understand what will work and what won't work, that we have come together, two different parties, actually, the Speaker of the Puerto Rican House engaging with us on how we are going to fix the island. One quick last point. This is about debt restructuring. This is about getting the finances in order. But this also has to be about economic growth. You won't have a recovery until you have economic growth. We incent investment on the island. Though we haven't done enough--there is still more to do--both sides have committed to making sure we come up with a strategy and a plan to make sure we have investment in Puerto Rico, so there is more opportunity, more jobs, more tax revenue, and more prosperity for the Puerto Rican people. I am proud of the work that this House has done on this bill, the different sides, different views, different opinions that have come together to make this bill happen. I would encourage everyone to support the rule and, later today, support this bill.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Bishop and the whole Natural Resources Committee for all of the hard work they put into this bill. This has been a months-long process of working with Democrats and Republicans, the administration, Treasury, Puerto Rican elected officials, all coming together to negotiate, to discuss, to philosophize and then eventually come up with what I think is an excellent resolution to the burning crisis in Puerto Rico. I want to take a moment to talk about what is actually happening on the island. Puerto Rico is $73 billion in debt. That is over 100 percent of GNP. They have almost $2 billion of unpaid bills to their vendors. So what does that mean? That means schools are closing down because we don't have fuel for energy in the schools or for school buses. Hospital wings are closing. Emergency vehicles aren't being run because the island doesn't have money to pay its bills. This is a true economic crisis. It is a true humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Puerto Rico. So the question becomes: Does this institution act to help Puerto Rico, or do we continue to negotiate and refine and tweak a bill that will never come to the floor, that will never make it to the Senate, that will never gain the President's signature? Do we let perfect be the enemy of the good? I think this is a great bill that is going to actually get Puerto Rico on a path to prosperity, opportunity, and economic growth; that is going to help the people in Puerto Rico who have a dream of living in Puerto Rico stay in Puerto Rico with their families in their communities on the island that they love. Right now, there is despair. We have thousands of people leaving Puerto Rico every month to come to the mainland because there is no opportunity. This is what debt does to economies. It absolutely crushes them, and it crushes people. So what do we do? Well, we have a two-pronged approach. Number one, the elected officials in Puerto Rico have known that this issue has been coming for years, and they haven't been able to get their hands around it, haven't had the political will to fix the burning problem. So we are going to put into effect an oversight board to actually work with the island government to get its finances and its budgets under control. That oversight board is going to have an opportunity to work on debt restructuring, which is the second prong of this bill. $73 billion in debt, they can't pay it. People might want to wish that all the bondholders could be paid. They might dream about all the bondholders being paid, but the bottom line is Puerto Rico doesn't have enough income to pay its bondholders. They can't pay their vendors, let alone their bondholders. So we set up a system where the island and the bondholders have a forum in which to negotiate a settlement, a resolution to this massive debt. And if they can't come up with a resolution or a solution to the debt, they can access the court system, and the courts can help them resolve the disputes in regard to this massive debt. It is that system that is going to allow for debt restructuring and an oversight board that is going to bring Puerto Rico to a place of economic health. When you can get to a place of economic health, you can start to have a conversation about economic growth; and when you have economic growth, you actually help people, you help families, and you help communities. Now, there are some who have said that this bill is a bailout. Let me tell you what. I have the definition of a bailout, and a bailout happens when this institution sends taxpayer monies to somewhere else or to somebody else. The bottom line is this bill doesn't spend any taxpayer money bailing anybody out. There is no taxpayer money that is involved. What we do here is say: Hey, listen. If you invested in Puerto Rican bonds and you might have gotten a great upside, a great return on your bonds that you maybe bought at 50 or 60 cents on the dollar, you took that risk; and if there is a loss, you, the bondholder, are going to bear the loss on that bond, but the taxpayers aren't going to bear that loss for you. So I think this is a great compromise, a great package that is going to bring economic health and growth back to Puerto Rico. I want to thank Mr. Pierluisi for all of the insight that he has given to both sides of the aisle on what needs to be done to make this work, and the elected politicians, the Speaker of the Puerto Rican House, who has been so gracious with his insight into how we structure a package that is going to grow Puerto Rico.