Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. We had to go to extreme measures to get the Federal Reserve to comply with our subpoenas to provide us the documents that this institution is entitled to. That shows how arrogant this institution--the Fed--really is. A rules-based approach makes sense. An audit of the Fed taking a look back that is not political, but a retrospective look at the Fed's monetary policy, makes absolute sense. And to think that we are going to talk about the blackout period at the Fed that, yes, you can have a blackout for monetary policy, but you can't use that blackout when we are talking about the supervisory and prudential functions of the Federal Reserve.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Jeff Zondlo--a Purple Heart recipient who volunteered to serve his country during the Vietnam War. Mr. Zondlo, of Marshfield, Wisconsin, voluntarily entered the draft for one noble reason: to give back to his then struggling country. While stationed at Chu Lai, Vietnam the enemy attacked his camp in the early morning hours of June 11, 1969. Several grenade explosions knocked Mr. Zondlo unconscious, left him with devastating burns, ruptured ear drums and a gaping hole in his lower back. In the process of receiving treatment for his wounds, a doctor asked him if he would read letters from home to a soldier whose injuries prevented him from reading them on his own. Despite his own pain, Mr. Zondlo relayed the words of love and encouragement to the soldier. Unfortunately, the soldier would not live to see his loved ones again, but his brother in arms, Mr. Jeff Zondlo, offered patient watch over him in his final days. It's for that selflessness--both in the call to serve his country and the drive to help others--that we pay tribute to Mr. Zondlo today. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Mr. Jeff Zondlo for his unending devotion to our nation. On behalf of this body and a very grateful nation, thank you.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Mulvaney's amendment to shield taxpayers from bailing out the Export-Import Bank. I have been here for this debate over the last 45 minutes, and I have heard my good friend from Frog Jump, Tennessee, comment, and I think he said the Export-Import Bank doesn't cost taxpayers one penny, okay? That was the quote, doesn't cost one penny. But what this amendment does is guarantee that the Export-Import Bank won't cost the taxpayer one penny because the taxpayer is not going to be on the hook. But then I just heard my good friend from Tennessee say, if we pass this amendment, it is going to kill the Bank. You can't have it both ways. Either it kills the Bank if you don't have a backstop because it costs the taxpayers money, or it doesn't cost the taxpayers any money and this amendment won't kill the Bank. But you can't have it both ways. It does not work that way. Listen, this makes sense. The Export-Import Bank helps the 10 largest businesses in America. Why are moms and dads and families in Wausau, Wisconsin, or Hayward, Wisconsin, Frog Jump, Tennessee, the suburbs of Chicago, or rural Oklahoma, who make $50,000, $60,000--maybe a little more in the Chicago suburbs--why are they the backstop for these biggest corporations? That shouldn't be the way it is. So let's take the backstop of that taxpayer, those American families, let's take them off the hook. As the author of the amendment said, let's let the Bank stand on their own. Let them make that guarantee on their own. In our communities, our banks make loans to small businesses every single day. I know the gentlewoman from Wisconsin knows that. There is not a taxpayer backstop to those loans. If they don't pay those loans back, the bank loses. Why are the biggest corporations getting the backstop of the American taxpayer? This one makes sense. This one makes sense. Let's all stand together and say the American taxpayer, the American family is not going to back up the biggest banks. Let's get away from the crony capitalism. It is not going to kill the Bank. It is a good amendment. This is the place and the time for reform. Maybe it should have happened 6 months ago, but with regular order, it gets to happen today. Let's stand together for American families and against crony capitalism.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to remember Major Justin Fitch. A son of Hayward, Wisconsin, and a decorated Army officer, colon cancer took Justin's life far too soon, but not before he made an incredible mark on his community and his fellow veterans. While serving in Iraq in 2007, Justin suffered thoughts of suicide. He actually went so far as to put an M-4 rifle in his mouth. But, thank God, he never pulled the trigger. When he returned home, he claimed victory over his suicidal thoughts, but another battle was just beginning for Justin. He was diagnosed with colon cancer. He waged a 3-year battle fighting that disease. Despite a grim prognosis, he used his attention to shed light on a mounting issue that he knew all too well. At the time, on average, 22 veterans were committing suicide a day. That is about 8,000 a year. Justin knew that something had to be done. And so in between his chemotherapy treatments and surgeries, he took part in long ruck marches. He teamed up with veteran prevention organizations and freely gave out his number to any soldier who approached him who also had thoughts of suicide. Major Fitch, fighting the battle of his life with cancer, was also giving his time to help save other veterans who were suffering with suicidal thoughts. Major Fitch passed away in his hometown of Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, on October 3. He was 33 years old. His personal battle may be over, but his fight marches on. As Justin would say: ``It's okay to seek help. You can get help. Look at me.'' And so, to Major Fitch, on behalf of a grateful Nation, we are thankful for your service and your sacrifice and your commitment to our veterans. May God bless you.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, we, before this debate, were having a debate on the Ex-Im Bank, and I made a point about my friends across the aisle standing up for big businesses, the cronyism between big government and Big Business. In this debate, they have a chance now to stand with small investors, the men and women around this country who put a little bit away every paycheck to hopefully have a little nest egg for their retirement, to stand with those people to make sure that when they get to their retirement, they have a nest egg that is worth something, and to make sure that those folks have advice along the way. The way the Department of Labor rule is structured is that most Americans aren't going to be able to get advice from a financial adviser; they are going to be driven to a robo-adviser. What that means is they are going to have to go to a Web site, answer about 6 to 10 questions, and the Web site will pump out a generic investment suggestion for them. No personally tailored advice from a financial adviser. That also has another effect. Think last month or 2 months ago in August when we had market movement. A lot of people get freaked out and they sell. But if you have an adviser, they say: Hold on. No, no, no, we have a long-term plan here. Don't sell, don't sell. Hold on. We are going to weather this storm together. But is a robo-adviser, the text from the computer, going to calm your nerves so that you don't sell your portfolio? This doesn't work for the American people. What the Department of Labor is doing is saying: If you are wealthy, if you have a lot of money, if you have a big nest egg, then you can get advice. But if you are poor or middle class, a middle-income American, you are not entitled to the same advice of the wealthy and the powerful. I am mostly concerned about one other point here, is that if this rule goes into effect and less Americans save and have less return on their investment, when they get to their retirement years, they are going to be more reliant on the government. We want people less reliant. We want people to take more responsibility so they have a nest egg to fund their retirement years, pay for themselves. The way this is structured, you will have less people doing that and more people looking to the government for care. I guess that is a greater debate that we have in this institution: Do we want more people relying on the government? I think the only conclusion I can draw with your support for this rule is, absolutely, yes. That is a wrong approach. We come from a long line of people who believe in self-reliance, in taking care of ourselves and our family. This rule from the Department of Labor is bad. Let's fix it with this bill.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly address my good friend from Minnesota's comments that this Ex-Im Bank doesn't cost any money. The truth is it does. We bailed it out to the tune of $3 billion in the 1980s. That same argument was made that Fannie and Freddie don't cost the taxpayers any money. Well, it doesn't cost taxpayers money until it does. It is a government backstop. It is a government guarantee. You see how hard it is: when you are going to take away a government subsidy, man, do businesses fight like you know what to make sure you can't take it away. They love their subsidies, and they will lobby and they will work to make sure to get what they think is theirs. I tell you, I am tired when I hear some of those Presidential candidates talk about cronyism and those who look out for corporate welfare and they try to point their finger to this side of the aisle. If you open your ears and listen to this debate, ask yourself: Who is fighting for corporate welfare? Who is fighting to make sure that you have a guarantee in the Ex-Im Bank that supports 80 percent of the dollars to big, massive American businesses? It is Democrats. Democrats partner Big Government with Big Business, and that is what is happening right here. Picking winners and losers, the story of Delta: Delta has to compete with airplanes that are subsidized in foreign markets by the American taxpayer. They can't compete. So we picked Boeing jobs over Delta jobs? Who are we in this institution to say what job is better? Let's let the market work. Let's not be the ones that come in and dictate what works and what doesn't. To think that we are going to set up a system that the Democrats--my friends will say this is about all American jobs. But it is only about American jobs if it meets our political criteria in that if you are dealing with carbon and I don't like carbon and if you are a carbon job, the Bank won't support those who are involved in a carbon export. That is wrong. Let's stand together. Let's work together. Let's fight for the American taxpayer and take away this government subsidy.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Hill, for his good work and our chairman for driving this legislation. It is bipartisan. Listening to the remarks that just took place from the minority leader, I know there is a comment, Madam Speaker, about consumers, but I think this is more of a play for the trial bar. Because if this 4- month hold harmless doesn't move forward, it is the consumers who are going to get hurt. It is the divorcee who needs the proceeds from the sale of her home from her husband to actually work on putting her life back together that now won't have that sale go through. In communities like mine in rural America where you don't have really large lenders and large title companies and large Realtors, we have small institutions. It is those communities that are going to be hurt the worst if we don't have this 4-month hold harmless. You have given up your lease. You expect to close on a house, and that closing is not going to happen. Or you are getting a new job and you are moving to rural America and you didn't secure a lease because you are buying a house, but you can't buy a house because you have the whole sector of this base that is not willing to take the risk. We are beating a horse here of 1,800-plus pages. It is a significant rule. It is very complex, and it baffles me that we wouldn't make sure that, as the system is implemented, we have a hold harmless provision, as long as those folks who are imposing new systems are making a good faith effort to comply. I think you were listening to the debate. We are all saying the same thing. We want to make sure we protect consumers. We want to make sure the private sector can actually implement the rule effectively. Mr. Cordray has come forward and indicated he is in support of a hold harmless, but I think the gentleman from California made a good point. It is not just the exposure that you have on the governmental side. It is also the exposure that you have the private side from private litigation.

Mr. DUFFY. And so I am concerned that we will have consumers who are set to buy a home who won't have that sale go through, and it is those families who are hurt the worst. There is a lot of stuff that we have to fight about that we disagree on, but it seems like we are so close on this one. Let's just go forward and do what is right for the consumers and right for the private sector and make sure that we have a 4-month hold harmless provision.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I have to tell you, I have been watching my Democrat friends across the aisle do somersaults trying to whitewash their past and rename their dinners that they have every year, their Jefferson-Jackson dinner. There is a big conversation about the Confederate flag and what it means, which I would agree with my friends across the aisle. But what they don't want to talk about is the roots of where Planned Parenthood started. It started with Margaret Sanger, a known racist and a speaker in front of the KKK. She believed in eugenics, and she is the founder of Planned Parenthood. We should talk about the racist roots of Planned Parenthood just like with the Confederate flag and just like the Jefferson-Jackson dinner that the Democrats celebrate every year. If you watch the videos that have come out about Planned Parenthood harvesting little baby body parts and selling those body parts for a profit, it is disgusting. This is not a debate about abortion or even non-abortion, pro-life or pro-abortion. Those who are even pro-abortion agree that these tactics are unacceptable. They have no place in our society. That Federal tax dollars should actually go to fund an institution that harvests baby body parts for sale is absolutely asinine. You want to talk about health care? Health care doesn't mean Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood doesn't mean women's health care. You talk about defunding women's health care. There is no less money. There is the same amount of money that goes to women's health care. That is a false argument. We spend the same amount of money, but we say: You know what? When we have an organization that supports the harvest and sale of body parts, our tax dollars probably shouldn't go to it. Or, better yet, why don't we let the States make that decision for themselves? If they say that it is an affront to our morals and our values in one State, we should say we are not going to send Federal Medicaid money to that organization. And if another State says, ``You know what? We are okay with it,'' then let them spend their money that way, giving States back the power to choose how they use their money. I have got to tell you that I oftentimes sit back and am amazed that my friends across the aisle who talk about being very compassionate and caring and loving and supporting the downtrodden can't join us in saying: We probably should at least ban abortions after 20 weeks when little babies feel pain, when little babies can survive outside the womb. We are so radical in our position that we want to support abortion up to the point of birth. We won't even support you if there is a botched abortion and the baby is born alive and we should probably try to save it. You can't even join us in that. It is a sellout to the radical abortion industry. I see the rally outside. It is a rally for Planned Parenthood, which provides the largest funds to the Democratic coffers, to their campaigns. This is not about life. This not about health care. This is not about abortion. This is about campaign money that flows from Planned Parenthood into my friends' campaigns. Sadly, I wish they would put aside their campaign concerns instead of standing for states' rights and women's health and little babies' lives.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. ``It is a boy,'' or, ``it is a girl''; any parent knows that phrase. It is one of the most memorable moments that they will ever have in their lives. Recently, we heard that same phrase, but it was said by an abortion provider at Planned Parenthood, and it was as that provider--we will use that term loosely--was siphoning through the body parts of a little baby, taking hearts and lungs for sale, but noticed it is a boy. What a perversion. What a perversion of who we are as a people. I think it calls into question this debate. This is not a debate about women's health. We are providing the same amount of money for women's health to great clinics that provide great care. It is about Planned Parenthood. Why is it about Planned Parenthood? If you watch this debate, you have to ask, how could anybody defend the practices at Planned Parenthood, harvesting body parts? How could anyone defend that? It is an easy answer. Look in political season. Millions of dollars--millions of dollars--are spent by Planned Parenthood to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives and to the Senate. This isn't about babies. This is about money.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to express great concern about the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule. This is a rule that is going to have a substantial impact on lower-income and middle-income savers, the men and women and the families that we want to get good advice from advisers so they can save and plan for their retirement. This rule is going to make it harder for American families to save for that eventual day of retirement. For decades, my constituents in Wisconsin have been served by well- regulated financial institutions, and they include the mutually owned cooperatives and the fraternal membership organizations. These organizations only do well if they serve their customers and their clients well, and if they don't serve them, the clients walk down the street, and they go somewhere else. This Department of Labor fiduciary rule is going to take the advice away from folks who need the most advice when they are saving. It is an idea that Washington knows best and that people with full disclosure can't make the right decisions for their families. This rule is a disaster, and my concern is less people are going to save, which means more people are going to be reliant on the Federal Government. That is a wrong approach. Let's not let this rule go through.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Mr. Gary Kieper of Antigo, Wisconsin for going above and beyond to serve our community. Mr. Kieper has earned the 7th Congressional District's ``2015 Paul Bunyan Service Above Self Award,'' which annually recognizes a constituent who takes a ``larger than life'' approach to serving our community. Mr. Kieper is the Vice President of his local Habitat for Humanity chapter and has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the organization. Those who work closely with him say that money has not only allowed them to build six new homes in the community, but has also given them the ability to expand their affiliate and repair existing homes for the residents. Mr. Kieper's involvement in our community reaches beyond Habitat for Humanity. He has taken on a large role with the ``Never Forgotten Honor Flight,'' which serves twelve counties around northern Wisconsin. Additionally, he just recently retired from the Antigo Unified School District after twenty-four years of distinguished service, including twelve as President. He continues to volunteer with his community fire department and is an active member of Peace Lutheran Church and the FFA. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 7th District of Wisconsin and this body, it is my proud honor to recognize Mr. Gary Kieper for his outstanding service to our community.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before you today to recognize Miss Clare Weber of Hudson, Wisconsin for her unparalleled dedication to serving our community. Miss Weber is the youth recipient of the 7th District's 2015 ``Paul Bunyan Service Above Self Award,'' which recognizes a constituent who takes volunteering to new heights. I am proud to honor this young woman for her larger than life dedication to serving our community. At just 17 years old, Miss Weber has already spent more than 1,000 hours volunteering with Youth Action Hudson, a local non-profit: during that time she has played a big role in helping feed the hungry through both the Empty Bowl project and Hudson Backpack Program. However, Miss Weber has also made it a priority to find new ways to give back. She recently organized an Operation Christmas Child project that collected dozens of gifts for children in Rwanda and Trinidad and Tobago and helped raise hundreds of dollars for the American Cancer Society. From her nominator: ``Since the first time I met her, I have continually been impressed and inspired by her dedication to service and I am certain that Clare will continue to be a catalyst for change in her school, church, and community.'' Mr. Speaker, please join me today to recognize Miss Weber for answering the call to selflessly serve our community.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sorrow that I stand today to recognize the death of Sgt. Carson Allen Louis Holmquist. Sgt. Holmquist was a loving man: He loved cars, trucks, and farming. He was an avid fisherman and hunter, and devoted to his family, friends and serving his country. On the morning of July 16, 2015, Sgt. Holmquist gave his life for the country he loved. He was shot and killed while working at a military facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It is in these stark moments, when soldiers are killed on our own soil, that we recognize just how fragile our freedom is. Liberty is a precious gift whose benefits we all enjoy, but too often we give little thought to the price that is paid. Vice President Cheney once said, ``Our nation grieves for the brave men and women whose lives have ended in freedom's cause. No one can take away the sorrow that comes to the families of the fallen. We can only say . . . that these Americans served in a noble and a necessary cause, and their sacrifice has made our nation and the world more secure. We will honor their memory forever.'' Through this moment of reflection, we can help keep Sgt. Holmquist's memory alive. We owe him nothing less than to remember, and to give thanks for all he has done on our behalf. Sgt. Holmquist is survived by his wife, Jasmine, and his young son, Wyatt, for whom Rachel and I offer prayers of comfort. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful nation, I ask that we salute him, and pledge that we will never forget.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Tom Kerr for his leadership and attention to our community's and our nation's wetlands. As the manager of Wisconsin's St. Croix Wetland Management District and Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Mr. Kerr understands that environmental conservation isn't something that can simply be purchased; it requires local engagement. This is why he's organized working programs such as Conservation Day, a collaborative event that educates students about what's involved in sustaining our ecosystems. I am proud that Mr. Kerr's outstanding years of service and dedication are being recognized with the National Wildlife Refuge Association's ``Paul Kroegel Refuge Manager of the Year'' award--one of the nation's highest honors given to conservation leaders. While overseeing thousands of acres of marshes, grasslands, and oak savanna throughout Northern and Central Wisconsin, Mr. Kerr finds unique ways to engage his neighbors and to lend a hand to many bird species in the process. I appreciate this opportunity to honor Mr. Kerr for putting conservation at the forefront in our community. On behalf of Wisconsin and this entire body, we thank him.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good point to make that there should be a set cost for these body parts. There should be costs of storing and transporting, but there should be no extra cost, and there should be no negotiation. Yet, if there is a black market and if markets are demanding certain prices because they are making a profit off of it, you are going to maybe have $30 for one and $100 for another based on the black market. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, for 30 years, Planned Parenthood has worked to dehumanize the babies that they have aborted, claiming that these little babies were just clumps of cells, just clumps of tissue; but through the recent videos that have come out, they have, in essence, admitted what we have known all along--that these are actually little humans. These are little babies, and their organs are being harvested for profit: little baby heads and little baby livers, little baby hearts and little baby lungs--little baby lungs that will never have an opportunity to cry, little baby lungs that will never be used to learn how to speak, and little baby lungs that will never learn to sing because they have been killed in the womb. These are little babies that are so well developed that they can survive outside the womb. These little babies feel pain in the abortion. These are little ones who, again, don't have lobbyists in this town that work for them. They are voiceless, they are defenseless, and so often they are powerless. But this House is coming together tonight in extraordinary form to make sure that these little ones are not forgotten, because we are standing up for them to make sure that their lives matter because in America we believe that all lives matter, whether you are born or unborn. So I am proud to be part of this Special Order tonight. I am proud that we have so many Members who want to come down and speak on this important topic. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been such a leader in the pro-life movement.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. DUFFY. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from Ohio in regard to taxpayer funding being used for abortion. I think so many Americans are outraged by Planned Parenthood and the abortions, but, now, specifically by these videos that have come to light. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to one of the leaders on this issue, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's powerful comments. She is right, we do need an investigation: Federal, State, FBI, and DOJ. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. This debate has been going on for some time. Not long ago there was a debate between Rick Santorum and now Senator Boxer, and during that debate Senator Boxer was talking about life beginning when you take your baby home from the hospital. I mean, some of the viewpoints on the other side are absolutely outrageous. It just shows there is a lot of work to do. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) to talk about this important issue.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and leadership. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), one of our House leadership team Members.