Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. We appreciate your voice being lent to the unborn. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I think America, with these videos, feels that very same outrage. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), one of the most powerful voices in the House, specifically on the life issue.

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentlewoman's wonderful comments. When you talk about the casual nature, you talk about doing procedures that are less crunchy. What are we talking about, less crunchy? We are crunching human bones. That is what they are actually saying in that videotape.

Mr. DUFFY. For crunching bones.

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I am now proud to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), one of my good friends.

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I look forward to an aggressive investigation by the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), one of my colleagues on Financial Services, one of our chairmen who has been doing fantastic work and a champion for life.

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentlewoman's powerful words. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. DUFFY. The gentleman's remarks were well said. Aren't we all grateful that our parents were pro-life? It gives us a chance to be on this floor and express our views. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the chair of our Conference but, more importantly, a mother.

Mr. DUFFY. Absolutely. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin.

Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) for a few comments on this important issue of life.

Mr. DUFFY. As we are about to close this hour, we have had a chance to hear from so many members of the House Conference who have spoken out on behalf of the unborn, those little babies that don't have a voice to speak for themselves, and I know in the next half hour we are going to have Mr. Franks from Arizona continue this conversation with so many more of our members who want to be heard on this important topic. I just want to close with this. The Democrats talk so often about what big hearts they have. They talk about how compassionate they are for their brothers and sisters and their neighborhoods. The bottom line is, when you watch these videos and you see the harvesting of organs, the pain of little babies, I call on my friends across the aisle to show that compassion for the unborn and those voiceless little ones who need a voice to stand up for them and defend them at this very important time. There has been a time in our past, Mr. Speaker, where powerful people determined that there was a class that was less than human, and it is a black spot on our history. Today, there is a group in this House that has advocated that there is a class in this country that is less than human. Yes, they may not have a voice, but that does not make them less than human. And I am so proud of our team for standing up today to make sure that we fight for those people because they are not less than human. They deserve the right to life, and they deserve to have a defense. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1295, I mistakenly voted ``no.'' I would like to vote ``yes'' on rollcall 345, the Motion to Concur in the Senate amendments with a House amendment to H.R. 1295.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 1, 2015, I was unavoidably detained traveling from Wisconsin due to a weather related flight delay. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following ways: 1.) On roll call no. 264 (Dingell Amendment to H.R. 1335)--No 2.) On roll call no. 265 (Lowenthal Amendment to H.R. 1335)--No 3.) On roll call no. 266 (Democrat motion to recommit to H.R. 1335)-- No 4.) On roll call no. 267 (Passage of H.R. 1335)--Aye

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest innovations that has ever been developed by man to connect people from every corner of the Earth, whether in cafes or homes or in schools, is the Internet. The reason the Internet has expanded and grown around the world and has been such an engine for innovation is the fact that the Internet embodies the American idea of free speech. That very idea of free speech in the Internet is under attack because the administration and some people in this institution want to see the core functions of the Internet be transferred to a foreign body that doesn't share our idea of free speech. Let's keep the Internet open. Let's make sure that we continue with the great American idea of free speech not just here in America, but in every corner of the globe because the Internet will embody that idea of free speech. The Internet was made in America. Let's keep the core functions of the Internet in America.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that is protecting babies who can survive outside the womb. These are babies who can feel pain. Knowing that this institution won't stand up for those vulnerable children in our society is a sad day for this institution. I have seven children. This is my sixth. This is MariV. This picture was taken with the two of us the day she was born. She is now 5 years old, and she is gregarious, awesome, fun--the most beautiful joy in our family. The way the law stands today is that, the day before this picture was taken, it would have been legal to have aborted MariV. I want to talk about women's rights. This is a little girl. This is a little baby girl who will one day grow up to be a woman. Let's stand up and protect this little girl, not the day that she was born only, but also the day that she was in the womb. Let's protect her from the pain of abortion, from the silent screams of those babies who were aborted in the womb who aren't heard because they don't have voices in this institution defending them. Madam Speaker, I listen to the floor debate day after day, whether in this Chamber or on C-SPAN, and I hear the other side talk about how they fight for the forgotten, how they fight for the defenseless, how they fight for the voiceless, and they pound their chests, and they stomp their feet. You don't have anyone in our society that is more defenseless than these little babies. I believe in life at conception. I know my colleagues are not going to agree with me on that, but can't we come together as an institution and say that we are going to stand with little babies who feel pain? that we are going to stand with little babies who can survive outside the womb--ones who don't have lobbyists, who don't have money, who can't rally, who can't offer contributions to one's campaign? Don't we stand with those little babies? If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to stand with little babies. Don't talk to me about cruelty in our bill when you look at little babies being dismembered and feeling excruciating pain. If we can't stand to defend these children, what do we stand for in this institution? What do we stand for in America if we can't stand up for the most defenseless and voiceless among us?

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Ms. Cindy Beranek on her outstanding teaching career. For more than thirty-two years, Ms. Beranek engaged the imaginations of her art students at Stratford Senior High School. Her passion for art and teaching was evident in her students' artwork. Stratford High School is always well represented in the annual Congressional Art Competition, often earning top honors, and, in the case of the 2015 competition, they took home all four awards, including the grand prize. Mr. Speaker, we recognize the powerful role that teachers play in molding our children's minds, but it is a rare teacher who also shapes their hearts. Ms. Beranek leaves a legacy of devoted service to the Stratford community, but takes with her the thanks and appreciation of a countless many students who will always treasure their time in her classroom.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Kaptur for her support of this amendment and for all of her work on the Great Lakes. It is remarkable that we have such a wonderful bipartisan group that has a wide variety of opinions in this Chamber but that comes together to support the health and well-being of our Great Lakes and of our fisheries. Thank you for your support. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment and to speak in support of a program that is important to my constituents and to all of those around the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration, also known as ``GLFER,'' is responsible for the planning, design, and construction of projects to protect and restore the fisheries and aquatic habitat of the Great Lakes. These projects include the restoration of riverside and wetland habitats, the construction of fish passages, and improving spawning and nursery habitats. A critical part of this program is that it requires a 35 percent cost share from a local sponsor. So it is not just Federal money. It is local money as well to fund this project. GLFER is widely supported by those with a stake in the Great Lakes, including the Great Lakes Commission, the Alliance for the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the Great Lakes fishing community. Al House of Washburn, Wisconsin, one of my constituents and a board member of the Apostle Islands Sport Fisherman's Association, recently shared with me the importance of this program. He recounted: ``In recent discussions with groups in Lake Superior's basin, sport fishermen are in unanimous agreement that the GLFER program offers invaluable support to fishery habitat and ecosystem restoration projects that maintain and restore the health of our Great Lakes.'' This program has broad bipartisan support and the backing of environmental, industry, and recreational groups. Not often in this House do we see this kind of support across the spectrum. It is authorized under WRRDA, similar to other regional restoration programs in south Florida and the Louisiana coastline, which are funded by the Army Corps of Engineers in this bill. Unfortunately, for the past several years, the Corps has chosen to include no funding for this program in the budget request. This is despite the calls from Congress to do so. In fact, language in the final funding bill for fiscal year 2015 urged the Corps to ``budget for this aquatic habitat restoration program in future budget submissions as it is important to the overall Great Lakes Restoration effort.'' Again, they didn't include it in their budget. This amendment is intended to ensure that the Army Corps actually provides the $10 million necessary for the GLFER program in this fiscal year. This program should not have to rely on funding from other Great Lakes programs or wait for the leftovers of the Corps' to fund this very important project. I would hope that the Corps would follow the advice of Congress and actually account for this program in next year's budget request--actually listen to us. I want to thank Chair Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this legislation and for their support on this issue. I would urge my colleagues to support our Great Lakes, to support our fish, and to support this bipartisan effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 21, 2015, I was at home in Wisconsin due to an unexpected family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following ways: on roll call no. 162 (H. Con. Res. 25)-- Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers Memorial Service and the National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition--Yea.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, I come from America's dairy land, the central and northwestern part of Wisconsin, and we have a lot of small dairy farms--300, 500, maybe a thousand acres of small family farms. This death tax, when Dad dies, isn't paid by Dad because he is gone, but the kids who inherit the farm are the ones who pay that tax, and they end up not being able to pay it. So what do they do? They sell to the corporate farm. Repealing the death tax is the ability to keep the American family farm and not transfer these farms to the big corporate conglomerates. If you want to stand with the little guy, let's repeal this thing. But it is not just farms. I have a family in my community in Wisconsin that employs hundreds of families. They are a manufacturer. A family-owned business. They asked me not to use their name, but they understand that this tax, if two or more of them die at the same time, they can't pay it, and so what they would be forced to do is sell the business, which would more than likely mean that they are going to lose these jobs to some other part of the country or some other part of the world. So now this family, because they love their community, they love the people that work in their company, many for 20 and 30 years, what they won't do is they won't travel together, they won't fly together, they won't drive together, because God forbid, if there were an accident and two of them die, they have to sell a major employer in our community. They don't travel together, family members, because of this tax. I hear my friends across the aisle talk about this helping the big, wealthy guy. I agree with the gentleman from Texas who has done such great work on this bill. They don't pay this tax. They don't pay. They have great lawyers, great estate planners. It is the guys in the middle that are employing folks in their community that pay this tax; and when they have to pay it, that means jobs for middle class Americans. I think we should all stand up in this House, and we should stand with the middle class Americans, the middle-income Americans, and let's work to repeal this bill to make sure that we have a vibrant, prosperous, middle class in America.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank him for his support in regard to my legislation and for all the work he does on Financial Services, as well as the support from the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. I am grateful to them as well. As we gather in this Chamber, I don't think it is very often that we come in in a kumbaya moment in regard to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I think those who follow our committee would recognize that there are a few differences in how the CFPB is structured and how it should move forward. We have had that debate. All of us agree that consumers should be protected, and they should have a strong advocate in that protection. Though we have disagreed on some elements of the CFPB, I am proud today that we have a bipartisan group coming in talking about some straightforward reforms that make some of the rules from the CFPB work a lot better and help consumers out, help Americans out, help our constituents out. In regard to my bill, in the last Congress, I tried to go to one of the advisory committees at the CFPB. Now, most of these are usually open in government. There are only a couple of exceptions. If you work at the CIA, the CIA doesn't open up their advisory committee meetings for obvious purposes and reasons; and the Fed, with the FOMC, when they are setting monetary policy, they too don't open up their meetings, community advisory meetings, for obvious purposes. But when I tried to go to a CFPB meeting in the last Congress, I was told by the CFPB that they would not accommodate my request because their meetings were closed. That concerned me because the CFPB has said that ``transparency is at the core of our agenda, and it is the key part of how we operate.'' On their Web site, they say that ``you deserve to know what we're doing for the American public and how we are doing it.'' So I had some concern that when the rest of government opens up their meetings, the CFPB wouldn't open up their meetings and allow the public to hear the conversation and the dialogue that was going on. I highly doubt the information is as sensitive as what is taking place at the CIA or setting monetary policy, and if we are protecting consumers, that should be an open conversation and debate. When I introduced a similar bill in the last Congress, I actually received a phone call from the Director, who said: You know what? This is a good bill. You know, we have had some disagreement on how the CFPB is run, but we will open up our meetings. Well, I don't know if in that phone call we had we weren't on the same page or what. I am not going to say it was trickery on the Director's part, but what happened was the CFPB opened up only a small portion of their advisory committee meetings, about an hour and a half, and in the other vast majority of the meetings, they moved them into what was called a subcommittee so they wouldn't be open. What my bill today does is make sure these meetings are open to the public, that we as a community, as an American family, get to see the conversation that is taking place in the advisory committees to the CFPB. It makes complete sense. I am proud and honored that my friends across the aisle were supportive of this measure. The ranking member, Ms. Waters, actually spoke kind of in favor of my proposal. I mean, I took it that way. She voted for it and recommended a vote in favor of it. I appreciate her bipartisanship. I think this is about making good work, making it accountable, making it transparent, and that is a start, at least in the advisory meetings that our government takes part in. I am grateful for the support; I am grateful for the time, and I urge my colleagues to support this great piece of bipartisan, transparent legislation.