Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

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

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, the Puerto Rico unemployment rate is double the national average. Nearly one in every two residents lives below the poverty line. Economic growth is in the negative. We have heard about that all day today. Now, PROMESA will stop the bleeding, but there isn't an easy solution to jump-start the economy. We have a down payment in a commission, but this is, I think, a real step in the direction of trying to kick-start economic growth. My amendment, with my colleague from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), will provide modest assistance to Puerto Rico by removing an impediment to the Small Business Administration's HUBZone program that limits the number of businesses on the island that are eligible for the program. This idea was brought to me by my friend Jaime Perello, the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico, and it is a good one. What does it do? The HUBZone program is a small business, Federal contracting assistance program, whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities. Now, there is a 20 percent cap. So that 20 percent cap for this program might not affect Minneapolis or Chicago or Milwaukee because you don't even have 20 percent of the communities that are distressed. However, in Puerto Rico you have far more than 20 percent of the communities that are distressed. You have 80 percent of them that are distressed. So by removing this cap, you have a larger part of the community that qualifies to access this program. This is, I think, a very good solution and downpayment on economic growth and investment in Puerto Rico. Not only that, but there have been some noted problems with the program. GAO has made some recommendations. We have solidified those recommendations in this bill not just for Puerto Rico, but for the Nation as a whole to make sure there are better checks and balances in the HUBZone program. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, who has the right to close?

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments by Chairman Chabot, and I would just note that I know his committee hasn't had oversight hearings on this issue. The GAO has done extensive studies, and the Small Business Administration has not implemented those recommendations. I think the most salient recommendations made by the GAO have been included in this bill and go a long way to improving the program, but if we are going to fix Puerto Rico, debt restructuring is imperative. This oversight board is key, but we need economic growth. And I think this is the right downpayment to help kick-start some economic growth on the island, that the people in Puerto Rico know that we understand that. And we are taking one small step today to show that we are going to help them get from that 20 percent cap to allow 80 percent of the island to access this HUBZone program because we care about growth, we care about opportunity, and we care about jobs on the island. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to this debate. My friends across the aisle are telling me that this is going to help Americans. Well, being creative, I can think of a few Americans that this will help: the loggers in north Wisconsin who are cutting wood and the papermakers in Wisconsin. It will help them for all the copies of this 1,000-page bill. Also, it will help the trial bar. If you look at a 1,000-page rule, how does anybody comply with that? The Department of Labor doesn't understand this rule. No one across the aisle understands this rule. So when a small-town investment adviser breaks this 1,000-page rule, in comes the trial bar and sues. It is a giveaway to the trial bar. Listen, we have had this conversation all afternoon. This is going to hurt middle-income, low-income individuals, low-income savers. Listen, if you are a millionaire or a billionaire, don't worry. You are going to be fine. You are still going to get that personalized financial advice. But if you are someone in my district, guess what they are going to say. Your financial adviser will say: I am sorry, sir. I can't service you anymore. I can't give you advice. So what are my friends across the aisle going to ask my constituents to do? They will be asked to sign up online for a robo-adviser where they will answer 8 to 10 questions and the computer will spit out advice for them. They get computer advice, not personal advice. So when people make erratic decisions, bad decisions, when markets move, you get your computer advising you. Instead of calling a person, an adviser who says, ``Listen, you are not going to retire for 10, 15, or 25 years, don't sell right now. Now is not the time to sell. Hold on,'' you don't get that advice because you have a computer. I think we have to look at the real intent of this law. Less people are going to save, and more people are going to save even less. So, at the end of the day, you are going to see Americans enter into their retirement years without having a little nest egg for their retirement, which means more Americans are going to be more reliant and more dependent on the government, which is what this has all been about: more government reliance. Let's make sure we empower our citizens, our people, to get financial advice and be treated fairly and honorably by the men and women who serve our communities and our constituents.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, and I am grateful for all of your work, Congressman Fortenberry, Congressman Vargas, and Congresswoman Eshoo. Sometimes people look at this House and think that all we do is fight and disagree. I am not going to talk about you two punching each other to get a little more press, but it is a remarkable night when we all come together and stand together on such an important issue as this, where we all lend our voices to an incredibly important cause. We spent a lot of time tonight talking about the atrocities, and I am going to join in because we can't say enough all that has happened. Two million Christians called Iraq home prior to 2013. Fewer than 300,000 reside there today. Many were victims of killing or kidnappings, others forced to leave their homes by radicals, al Qaeda or ISIS. In Syria, Christians accounted for 10 percent of the population, but today their numbers have declined to less than 1 million. Last summer, ISIS kidnapped nearly 300 Christians in a Syrian village and then later ransomed them back to their families for an average of $100,000 per person. When ISIS invaded Mosul, Iraq, in 2013, as Mr. Fortenberry mentioned, they tagged Christian homes with an N for Nazarene, and then they gave the occupants a choice: you can convert, you can flee, or you would face death. In July of 2014, ISIS announced that the city, no doubt, was Christian-free--no surprise. In 2014, August, a woman from Bartella, Iraq, recounted the night that ISIS came into her village and then into her home and accused her of putting gold coins in her 11-month-old baby's diaper. So they took her baby, threw her baby on the couch, beat her baby, and threw her up against the wall. Eventually, they let her leave, but they kept her husband and made him convert. In February of 2015, ISIS slaughtered 21 Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach, pointing them towards Rome, and proclaimed this message: ``Signed with blood to the nation of the cross.'' In March of 2016, this month, four nuns, members of the Missionaries of Charity, founded by the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta, were executed by gunmen in Yemen. Their crime? They were caring for the elderly and the disabled. Pope Francis called them today's martyrs. Just yesterday gunmen stormed three hotels on the Ivory Coast. Among the 18 people who were killed was a 5-year-old boy--a 5-year-old boy-- who was shot in the head. But eyewitnesses report that the friend who was with him was spared his life because he was able to recite a Muslim prayer. Mr. Speaker, these are hardly isolated incidents. As we have talked about tonight, this is genocide. The Knights of Columbus submitted a 280-page report chronicling the persecution of Christians by the Islamic State to the State Department this week. The leader of ISIS recently released a video that made very clear their intent to destroy Christians throughout whatever means possible. He said: The co-existence of Christians and Jews is impossible, according to the Koran. I don't think we have to scratch our heads and ask ourselves what is happening in Iraq and Syria. Pope Francis recently condemned the wholesale slaughter of Christians by ISIS, saying that entire Christian families and villages are being completely exterminated. I look at this House tonight and I am proud that we have so many men and women who are willing to stand up and lend their voice to this great cause. We have a reputation in America as being a beacon of light, men and women who stand up for freedom, better known as freedom fighters, freedom of life, freedom of religion. When there are atrocities in the world, we stand up and lend a voice to those who are being persecuted, those who are downtrodden. I am disappointed that the President has been unwilling to join this House and call the atrocities in Syria and Iraq a genocide. The first step to making sure this ends is that we speak the truth about what is actually happening. Hopefully, if the President is watching tonight, he will see that we have both Republicans and Democrats who agree on this very important issue. Hopefully, he will join us and take that first step to shedding light on what is happening in Iraq and Syria. Mr. Fortenberry, I commend you for your good efforts on this very important issue. I am proud to stand with you and the rest of this Chamber to make sure those who might not know that people care about them as they are going through pain and anguish--we hear about the sex slaves, young little girls who are held captive, little Christian and Yazidi girls--that they know that people hear them, people care about them, and people are doing here in America all we can to help them out of this crisis. Thank you for your work.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Second Lieutenant Ellen Ainsworth of the Seventh District of Wisconsin for her bravery, sacrifice, and service to her country during World War II. Second Lieutenant Ainsworth grew up in the Wisconsin farming community of Glenwood City, where she is still recognized for her service and her sacrifice. Ellen was well known around town as a caring young woman who loved to sing. She had a beautiful voice. Folks in town saw her as a leader and a go-getter. When duty called, she selflessly answered that call of duty. In 1942, she entered the United States Army Nurse Corps after graduating from nursing school at the Minneapolis Eitel Hospital. She was first deployed to Tunisia and then, shortly after, to Italy, where she was assigned to the 56th Evacuation Hospital. Although the risk was high, it did not stop Lieutenant Ainsworth from honorably serving her country. On February 10, 1944, Lieutenant Ainsworth's hospital tent came under heavy artillery attack in an area many described as hell's half acre. Under heavy enemy fire, Lieutenant Ainsworth disregarded her own well- being, evacuating 42 patients to safety, only stopping when she was hit by shrapnel from an exploding ordnance. Lieutenant Ainsworth succumbed to her wounds 6 days later. At just 24 years old, she was the only Wisconsin servicewoman to make the ultimate sacrifice during World War II. Ainsworth was buried in the Sicily-Rome American Cemetery and Memorial in Italy. Lieutenant Ainsworth was posthumously awarded a Silver Star, a Purple Heart, and a Red Cross Bronze Medal. A portrait of her currently hangs in the Pentagon as a testament to her bravery in the face of chaos and destruction. The courageous actions of Lieutenant Ainsworth are witnessed today by the children of the soldiers who she saved, who would not be here if not for her heroism. She personified the honor and dignity through sacrifice that so many of her fellow Wisconsinites displayed during World War II. Her death was a tragedy for the small town of Glenwood City. Over 72 years later, Lieutenant Ainsworth still has a large presence in that community. A health clinic, a veterans home as well as the American Legion post in her hometown have all been named in her honor. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to sponsor H.R. 4046, a bill that names the Glenwood City Post Office after Lieutenant Ellen Ainsworth. It will stand as a reminder of the bravery of one American from Wisconsin's Seventh Congressional District. Please join me to recognize this most deserving hero and Wisconsinite as we name the post office at 220 East Oak Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin, the Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth Memorial Post Office. General Leave

Mr. DUFFY

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

Mr. DUFFY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for all of his good work on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, as all of us know in this institution and around the country, we are $19 trillion in debt. We borrow around $3.8 billion a day, and we spend about $250 billion a year to service our debt. One of the tools that we have in this Congress is the debt limit in order to get the administration to help reform the way we spend. In 2011, Congress challenged President Obama. When he asked to have an increase in the debt limit, we said let's have a decrease in how much money we spend. As a political fight played out, the administration promised that chaos would ensue across the global markets if the debt limit were reached, and it also said that any proposal that would prioritize payments through the Treasury for principal and interest on our debt could not be taken seriously. Mr. McClintock had a bill that would have done just that. The Committee on Financial Services, the committee on which I serve, did an investigation, and we found that, though they said Mr. McClintock's bill could not be taken seriously, they actually had a plan to do just what Mr. McClintock had recommended, which is, if the debt limit is reached, prioritize payments. They weren't being honest with the American people, because what they wanted to do was to use the argument of chaos to put pressure on Republicans to cave and not demand that we reform the way that we spend. My amendment here today is very simple. All it says is let's make sure that the Treasury comes clean and tells the American people whether it can pay principal and interest before other obligations so that America does not default on its debt. It is very simple. No one here wants to hit the debt limit, and no one wants us to be the next Greece or Puerto Rico, but that is going to take working together in order to make sure we have budgets that balance at some point in the future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that this bill guarantees that we pay our debt. That is exactly what this bill does. So I would note that the Democrats are making the argument for me. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), someone who has worked very hard on this issue as well.

Mr. DUFFY. May I ask the chairman how much time I have remaining?

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that $800 billion from ObamaCare to Medicare came from Democrats; $250 billion a year in interest goes to China. Let's balance the budget. I would love to see the Democrats' plan to balance. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman yielding. I am grateful for Chairman Luetkemeyer's work on this important issue. Our financial systems are the bedrock of our economy. When financial systems work, our economy works. And we have seen when our financial system doesn't work, things come crashing down. To make sure our financial system is safe and sound, we have empowered regulators to keep an eye over it, to make sure we don't do things that are too risky that can endanger the financial system and then, therefore, the economy. One of the problems, though, is that those regulators have stepped outside that traditional role and have tried to impact policy decisions that should be made in this institution by rules and regulations that come out from their oversight capacity. I look at the liberals, or it might be the progressives, inside the FDIC who, in line with the administration, said: I don't like gun dealers, I don't like ammunition manufacturers. Who cares about the Second Amendment? I don't like them. Now, if you don't like guns and you don't like ammunition and you don't like short-term lenders, if you want to get rid of those things, have a debate about it. Have an argument. Introduce a bill, and let's vote on it. Let the American people see it. But the administration knows they will lose because most Americans like their guns, they like their Second Amendment. So instead of going through this institution, they very craftily thought: Wow, just think, if we were able to, as regulators, put pressure on banks so banks would stop banking legal businesses that we don't like--guess what happens if they can't bank? They will go out of business, and we will have less guns, less ammunition, and we will have less short-term lending. That is exactly what they have done. But we didn't empower the FDIC to make policy decisions. We said, hey, keep the banking system safe and sound. But like so many corners of this administration, they have expanded that authority to advance their liberal, progressive agenda. I know my friends across the aisle, who I like very much and are friends of mine, are trying to focus on big banks and Wall Street. But, Mr. Chairman, to the ranking member I would say: Listen, big banks aren't being affected by Choke Point. It is the smallest, little businesses in our communities that don't have the power to stand up and fight back and push back. They are the ones that are affected. Big banks on Wall Street don't get hit by this. It is the little guy. This is a bill that Mr. Luetkemeyer crafted that stands up for the little guy--the little one that doesn't have the lobbyist and the money to come to town to talk to Members of Congress--who is being affected by this liberal progressive agenda today that they know can't be get passed by law, so they do it by regulation. This is one more horrible example of how your government isn't working and how this institution isn't representing the people that we were sent here to represent. This is a great bill. Let's pass it. Let's join together and let's stop Operation Choke Point.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey yielding. I am grateful for his powerful advocacy for the unborn in his whole tenure here in Congress. You have been a true leader and an inspiration for some of us who have come after you. I have been in this institution for 5 years. Over the course of that 5 years, I have heard many of my liberal friends and a lot of friends from the Congressional Black Caucus talk about how there is targeting and unfair treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system. I have heard them. In Financial Services, I hear them talk about how big financial corporations target African Americans and minorities. As I turn on my TV, I listen to Black Lives Matter talk about how police and law enforcement are targeting African Americans and minority communities. I hear a lot in this institution from minority leaders about how their communities are targeted. But what I don't hear them talk about is how their communities are targeted in abortion. Here are some stunning facts. The African American community is 15 percent of the country as a whole but accounts for 40 percent of the abortions. Fifteen percent of Americans, 40 percent of the abortions. In New York City, the most recent statistic is that African American women had more abortions than live births. There is a targeting going on in a lot of spaces and a lot of places, and it is going on in the abortion industry. And my liberal friends, Congressional Black Caucus Members, talk about fighting for the defenseless, the hopeless, and the downtrodden. There is no one more hopeless and voiceless than an unborn baby, but their silence is deafening. I can't hear them. Where are they standing up for their communities, advocating and fighting for their right to life? Black lives matter. They do. Indian, Asian, Hispanic, and White, all those lives matter. We should fight for all life, including the life of the unborn. We have talked about this a lot of times. In 2 weeks, there is going to be an amazing march that takes place right here at the Capitol, and you are going to see tens of thousands of people come out and support life. You are not going to see the national media cover this. They are going to ignore tens of thousands of people. Just think how powerful that rally is going to be when you have Reverend Al Sharpton standing on the stage talking about how he is going to fight for his community and his unborn babies and all the Congressional Black Caucus standing behind him saying: Do you know what? We are going to fight for these defenseless and voiceless little babies in our community that are being targeted. And just think if our President who sheds a tear for violence goes to the West Wing and sheds a tear for the unborn. I can only hope and pray.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Tonight I rise to talk about our brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico. If you have watched the news recently, you are well aware that there is an economic financial debt crisis taking place right now in Puerto Rico. Our American brothers and sisters are going through an incredibly difficult time. The island is $73 billion in debt. That is 100 percent of their GDP, which is catastrophically high. This debt has had a huge impact on the livelihoods of those who live on the island. The unemployment rate is over twice what it is on the mainland. It is at 12.4 percent. Forty-eight percent of Americans on the island are living in poverty. Again, half of the island citizens--Americans--are living in poverty. Ten percent of the 3.5 million people on the island are leaving and they are coming to the mainland. It is great because they work hard and they have an amazing culture. It is wonderful they are coming. But if you are coming to the mainland, you should be coming because you want to come, not because you don't have economic opportunity in your home. We don't want to force people away from their families and their neighbors and their community because they don't have economic opportunity. We have to stand together in this House and stand with our brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico. We can't turn a blind eye. We have to work with them. We have to work for them so we can address this crisis. Yesterday I introduced a pretty simple and straightforward bill that will help jump-start the Puerto Rican economy, help put people back to work, grow their economy, better paying jobs, and lift people out of poverty. It is very simple. It is called the Puerto Rico Financial Stability and Debt Restructuring Choice Act, and it has two prongs. Prong number one is we are going to implement a financial stability board that is going to help the island with the management of its budget, its tax collection, and its finances. Prong number two is Puerto Rico can access a chapter 9 bankruptcy. By the way, every State in America can access chapter 9. It will be the same rights as every State that we will offer Puerto Rico. It is pretty simple and straightforward stuff. I also think it is important to note that no one wants to have a financial stability board shoved down their throat, and the citizens of Puerto Rico don't want that either. That is why we give them the choice. This doesn't go into effect unless the Puerto Rican legislative assembly approves the financial stability board and the Governor signs it so that they have a say in their future. If we do this, we will allow Puerto Rico to restructure their debt, to get their finances in order, to grow their economy, and to let people on the island start living the American Dream. If we do nothing, if we turn a blind eye and say that we are not going to offer the same bankruptcy option that every State has, we are turning our backs on our fellow American citizens on the island, and that is not who we are. We should stand together. Now, there are others who have proposed different solutions for the island, and those solutions involve a bailout without real structural reform. I have got to tell you that, after the 2008 financial crisis, I think Americans have had it up to here with bailouts. We usually go with bankruptcy and financial reform, and that is what my bill does. I would encourage all of my fellow Americans in this institution, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you are a Republican or a Democrat, to note that our brothers and sisters, our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico, are going through tough times, and it is our job to stand with them, not turn our backs. If we can pass this bill, it is going to be a new day on the island, economic prosperity and opportunity. And then people have a choice to say: Do I want to stay on the island, raise my family on the island, or do I want to leave and come to the mainland? The choice is theirs. They won't be forced into that choice just because they don't have opportunity on the island of Puerto Rico. I encourage all of my colleagues and friends to reach out. Let's be part of the solution. Recovering America

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, today I rise to talk about a commonsense amendment, an amendment that takes aim at excessive bureaucratic rulemaking at the EPA. The EPA has long been known to issue onerous and costly rules with little regard to the impact on American businesses and the families who run those businesses. According to some estimates, 17 of the EPA's major rules implemented between 2000 and 2013 have imposed an annual economic impact of $90 billion--a $90 billion annual impact per year, which means real jobs and a real impact on our economy. Adding to the frustration, the EPA often ignores longstanding executive orders that require them to improve their own regulatory coordination planning and reviews. These executive orders were issued under the Clinton and Obama administrations, two administrations that have a very positive outlook towards the EPA. By no stretch of the imagination do we consider them conservatives. These orders require departments, but not independent regulatory agencies like the EPA, to follow certain guidelines when it comes to major rules that would have a dramatic impact on State, local, or tribal government, or private sector expenditures in the aggregate of more than $100 million a year. So those are big rules that have big impacts. The mercury rule put forward by the EPA is a prime example of that. It was going to cost $10 billion. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that rule because the EPA unreasonably failed to consider the cost. My amendment would require the EPA to actually follow existing requirements to improve regulatory planning, coordination, and reviews. American families and businesses can't afford the EPA to continue with duplicative and overreaching regulations. The EPA should have to follow the same rules that other departments in American government must follow.

Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, some of my friends across the aisle's arguments are: Don't let the people know. Let's not be transparent. Let's have the EPA implement rules with no comment, no transparency, and no input from the American people. That is not what our Founders envisioned. They envisioned a form of government where it was transparent and we all had a say in the process. These aren't radical ideas. This is common sense. Listen, a quote: ``Regulations shall be adopted through a process that involves public participation.'' That wasn't from Ronald Reagan or George Bush. That was Barack Obama. ``Each agency, where feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views of those who are likely to be affected.'' Not Ronald Reagan, not George Bush, but Barack Obama. This stuff makes sense. Open the process up, let the American people see the impact and the rules that are being proposed, just like in every other government agency. The EPA shouldn't get special treatment. Transparency, good government, American involvement from the people in the process is what this amendment is about. I encourage all of my colleagues to support good government and a great amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding. I want to thank Chairman Huizenga for his good work on the FORM Act. I think this is a commonsense set of reforms that make the Federal Reserve more accountable to the American people, which means they are more accountable to the United States Congress. I would ask my colleagues across the aisle and my good friend from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who says that the FORM Act is one that would provide for the Congress to set monetary policy, where in the FORM Act does it say that? Just because we ask for oversight, just because we want to have the Federal Reserve accountable to the Congress and to the American people, doesn't mean that Congress is taking the role of setting monetary policy. Again, that is just setting up a straw man and trying to knock it down in the argument. This is important stuff. There is a distinct difference between the two sides of the aisle. We do think there should be accountability and transparency. But my friends across the aisle will continue to advocate for very powerful government institutions empowering bureaucrats that are not elected and that are not accountable to the American people to make decisions that have huge impacts on the American people. What we say on our side of the aisle is, in our form of government, the people have a right to have a say in their government, which means you need to empower the Congress and the Senate to have oversight over these very powerful organizations. That is the great debate that we are having here. We want oversight and transparency. We don't want to set monetary policy. I chair the Committee on Oversight, and we have asked the Federal Reserve for documents that we are entitled to in regard to an FOMC leak. The Federal Reserve has basically said: Yes, you are entitled to these documents. But, guess what, we are not going to give them to you. What is the reason, Madam Chair? I don't have a really good reason. Some people asked me not to give them to you. I know you are entitled, but I am not going to send them over to you.