Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately unable to cast a vote on rollcall 621 on the evening of July 21, 2011.

I strongly support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its mandate to protect American consumers and I would have voted NO on passage of H.R. 1315. The CFPB will provide families a level playing field upon which to shop for the full range of financial products.

The CFPB is the most accountable regulatory body in the world. And their work has already begun. Starting today, the CFPB credit card hotline is up and running, fielding complaints from American consumers and beginning to hold companies accountable. Consumers can reach them at 855-411-CFPB or online at consumerfinance.gov.

Families will finally have a cop on the beat looking out for their interests. But American consumers should be forewarned, if you have a complaint, report it now. Because, as we speak, Republicans in Congress are doing all they can to take away your consumer protections.

I thank my good friend from Ohio.

This is getting old. The majority knows it can't kill an idea whose time has come. So now they're trying to slow down the process, just like their friends in the banking industry who use tricks and traps to separate American families from their hard-earned money. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to turn the CFPB into the Center For Profits and Big Business.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will provide families a level playing field upon which to shop for the full range of financial products. Nothing is getting banned. Consumers can still choose to make bad decisions if they wish, but now they'll have the tools to be better informed through the process. Instead of mountains of mortgage documents, they'll get a simple-to-read one-page document that they can then use to answer crucial questions like, Is this something that I can afford? Is this the best deal that I can get?

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the most accountable regulatory body in the world. In fact, it has a whole slew of regulators watching and questioning everything it does. It is required to undergo an annual GAO report; have all enforcement actions subject to appeal; and be regulated, in turn, by every other agency on the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Simply put, the CFPB helps families hold on to the money they might otherwise give to the banks. And the banks hate that.

That is precisely why the majority has thrown this ridiculous bill together. Among other things, this legislation would require those regulating predatory lenders to stop if their actions threatened the company's ``safety and soundness.'' In other words, their profits.

We heard all about this issue when we banned unreasonable penalties on credit cards. At the time, the credit card companies said this would absolutely crush their model. Well, look what's happened. Are they still alive and well? You bet they are. But the truth is this legislation isn't really about any of that. No, this is about the only area where the majority has any kind of legislative record: legislative delay.

The anti-consumer bloc in this Congress is engaged in a legislative Ponzi scheme. They're helping Wall Street suck a few more dollars out of American families before the inevitable happens and the CFPB stands up. Every day politicians can stall the opening of the bureau, well, that's more profits.

Today, the CFPB is alive, and I want every American to look at this opportunity to call this number. This is a hotline available today for you to access if you've got problems with your credit cards; but you had better act now because the majority wants to shut it down.

Mr. Speaker, for the last few months I have come to this floor every week to talk about a moral black eye on this country--the issue of rape and sexual assault in the military. I have mentioned the fact that the Pentagon has estimated that 19,000 servicemembers are raped or sexually assaulted each and every year. The victims typically are blamed and the assailants are promoted.

I have shared the personal stories of several women who needed to have a bright light shined on this ongoing epidemic. But it is not only females in the military that are victims. Men are being victimized as well.

In an April 2011 article entitled ``The Military's Secret Shame,'' Newsweek looked at the subject hardly anyone talks about: male on male rape and sexual assault. Mr. Speaker, it is time to break this silence.

Last year, nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for ``military sexual trauma.'' Think about that, 50,000 men. That's nearly double what it was in 2003. Another 110 men made confidential reports of sexual assault by other men, nearly three times what it was in 2007. We know the number of actual victims is much higher.

The latest Department of Defense report showed that only 13 percent of those who are raped in the military actually report them. Men keep quiet for the same reasons women do--a military system that gives them virtually no chance of justice.

In 2010, the Pentagon anonymously asked active duty soldiers who had been sexually assaulted why they did not report their attacks. Half of them said they didn't want anyone to know. A third of them said they didn't think anything would be done. And 30 percent said they were afraid of retaliation or reprisal.

I now want to share with you the story of Blake Stephens. I warn you that some of the material is graphic.

Stephens joined the Army in 2001. The verbal and physical attacks started quickly and came from virtually every level of the chain of command. In one of the worst incidents, a group of men tackled him, shoved a soda bottle into his rectum, and threw him backward off an elevated platform onto the hood of a car. When he reported the incident, his platoon sergeant told him, ``You're the problem. You're the reason this is happening,'' and refused to take action. His assailants told him that once deployed to Iraq, they would shoot him in the head.

I recently received an email from Heath Phillips, who joined the Navy at the young age of 17, in 1988. Phillips was attacked on multiple occasions beginning his first weekend on duty. When he reported the assault, he was called a liar, a baby, mama's boy, and a few other choice words. He would complain to the chain of command and be told to shut up, and asked for witnesses. In one particularly horrific incident, a group of men attacked Phillips in the shower and sodomized him with a toilet brush handle. They laughed and joked about it the whole time. After he went to the infirmary, bleeding and in pain, he was told he was fine and to take the day off. Phillips eventually went AWOL to protect himself. He still suffers to this day.

Mr. Speaker, this is a moral black eye on the military, it's a moral black eye on this Congress, and it's a moral black eye on this Nation. It is time to stop talking and to take action.

Madam Speaker, for a number of months now I have come to this floor to tell the stories of men and women in the military who have been raped by other soldiers. As heinous as those assaults are, the greatest injustice is suffered after the assault when victims are doubted, debased, disrespected, and discharged from the military that they have so proudly enlisted in.

Last night, I had a long conversation with an Army and Navy veteran, Terri Odom, who told me she dreamed to serve in the military since she was a little girl. She was so determined that between her junior and senior summer she went to boot camp--not to some playground area somewhere in her community, but to boot camp. After high school, she went to Sicily with the Seabees. She told me that she had never been happier, serving her country, seeing the world, even swimming in the Mediterranean. It was like Terri was living a military recruiting commercial.

While there, she was befriended by an NCO 25 years her senior. He was a father figure to Terri, and she trusted him explicitly. When he volunteered to walk her home one night, Terri accepted the offer without hesitation. She told me that when he first grabbed her, she was more confused than scared. This is a young woman who was very proud of her service and had the utmost respect for her colleagues, particularly one who had such a distinguished career. This couldn't possibly be happening.

Terri's story is graphic. I only tell you the details so you can understand how horrific the response has been from our military.

Terri was raped repeatedly. Her abuser used pipes and other objects he found in her bathroom that was being remodeled. He cut her arms and vagina, then poured paint thinner into her wounds. He punched her with the full force of his 6-foot-4-inch, 270-pound frame. Terri, it should be noted, is 5 foot 3 inches. She fought back, even did some damage, but she was outmatched.

She woke up in a bathtub covered in blood. She was missing teeth and fingernails, yet her first thought was that she couldn't be late for duty. She also knew that she could get medical attention and file a criminal complaint at the base. Surely, the Navy would take care of her. It turns out she was wrong about that, as she was about her rapist.

Terri cleaned herself up, showered, showed up for duty, and reported the rape to her chain of command. She requested medical attention, but was told instead to take an aspirin and sleep it off. No one in Terri's chain of command allowed her to get medical attention. Instead, they told her to drop the rape story or her career would be over. Despite valiant efforts to stop it, Terri was eventually honorably discharged against her will, which is exactly what happens to 90 percent of military personnel who report rapes.

The Navy lost a good soldier that day. The Navy also kept a rapist-- not officially, of course, because there was never an investigation. The reason? Because in the military, the authority to request one lies with the chain of command; but the chain of command is incentivized not to, because they are judged on how few instances of rape and other mishaps occur during their command. This is as true today as it was when Terri served. That is why Terri Odom has once again answered the call to service. She is here with me this morning to make sure her story is heard.

This Nation must aggressively pursue rape charges in our military. Sexual assault cases must be taken out of the chain of command and must never be punished by nonjudicial remedies like a mere demotion in rank. Finally, a uniform is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Military sex offenders must be entered into the same national database as those in the civilian world.

Two decades ago, a young woman served proudly in the United States Navy and knew she was making the world a better place; then, a criminal and a criminally negligent system conspired to take it all away from her. But that young woman is back and she is not alone. Women and men from every branch of the military are speaking up. This is a problem we can fix. We only have to want to.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present this amendment. This actually was adopted by a voice vote in the Financial Services Committee in 2010; and my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Biggert, may recall it. It was something that came up in my district where an elderly woman, living on Social Security, had a mortgage balance on her home of $13,000; but because she was being included in a newly mapped flood zone, her bank required her to purchase the full $250,000 in flood insurance at a cost of more than $2,400 per year.

I would venture to say that we don't see ourselves as being in the insurance business by choice. We are in the flood insurance business out of necessity, and it would seem to me that it doesn't make a lot of sense to impose an obligation on homeowners to purchase insurance that exceeds the actual cost of their mortgage, especially when we note that the average flood damage claims are anywhere from $25,000 to $35,000. So to require someone who has a $13,000 loan balance to purchase flood insurance for $250,000 and pay a fee, a yearly premium of $2,400, is just, I think, unacceptable; and I would think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to do something for those people who have been responsible, pay down their mortgages, and have small balances.

This particular amendment makes it a violation for a lender, whose only interest in the property is the amount of the outstanding mortgage indebtedness, to use the National Flood Insurance Program to require a homeowner to purchase more than the legally required amount of flood insurance, an amount equal to the outstanding principal balance. Nothing, however, would prohibit a homeowner who wished to purchase more coverage from doing so, and nothing would preclude a mortgage lender from including such a requirement in the mortgage contract up front, as long as it was fully disclosed. In both cases, the homeowner would be able to make a choice, and this would be full disclosure as well.

In California, where we have mandatory auto insurance, once a car owner has discharged their debt on the car, they are no longer obligated to carry coverage for the damage to their own car, only the liability insurance if they crash into someone else's car. This amendment is very consistent with giving people a choice as well. Again, I offer this amendment and ask for its support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment enhances the derivations proceedings provision in the first-inventor-to-file section of the bill.

As we know, the U.S. Patent Office is a vital tool that facilitates universities and businesses of all sizes to turn ideas and discoveries into successful products. Having said that, we must ensure that our patent system provides strong and predictable intellectual property protections.

This act creates a new process called ``derivation,'' by which a party can defeat an earlier filed patent application by showing that the invention in the earlier application was derived from the party's invention or concept. The bill requires a party to support a petition for derivation by ``substantial evidence'' in order to initiate a proceeding.

The derivation proceedings in this legislation must be a process that is fair, reliable, and permits the Patent and Trademark Office to make a decision based on a solid record of relevant evidence. This amendment helps to accomplish this by requiring the PTO to provide rules for the exchange of relevant information by both parties.

The substantial evidence threshold at the petition stage of the proceedings may not be reasonable in some circumstances. For example, consider a situation where an inventor discloses an invention to a venture capitalist who declines to invest in it. The venture capitalist has conversations with several other VCs about the invention, and eventually a company funded by one of those VCs files a patent application for something very much like the original invention. If a company funded by the original VC has filed the application, the inventor would be able to show substantial evidence of derivation through the disclosure to the VC and the link between the VC and the company filing the application. However, in the instance when an inventor did not personally make a disclosure to other VCs or the company that filed an application, it would be difficult for the inventor to show substantial evidence, particularly relevant to disclosures about which the inventor is unaware.

The public's interest in fostering innovation requires that the derivation proceedings be equitable to both parties and that the PTO have a complete record of evidence on which to make its decision. Inventors must have a fair chance to prove their claim, and defending parties must be able to provide evidence to rebut claims. This amendment accomplishes these goals by requiring the PTO to provide rules for the exchange of relevant information and evidence by both parties.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment which strikes section 2 of the bill.

Section 2 of this bill would amend the Clean Air Act to force emissions from any offshore source to be measured only at the corresponding onshore location. Yes, you heard me correctly, the bill demonstrates willful ignorance of the fact that pollution is also harmful over water, not just on land. This dirty air loophole is so big you can float a Deepwater Horizon-sized oil rig through it.

I know our philosophies differ here, but the fact is that even if we produced every drop of recoverable oil offshore today, it would only last us for 3 years at our current consumption rate. Then we would be right back where we started from without having reduced our demand on oil, except we would be about billions of dollars poorer after subsidizing the oil companies to turn the rest of offshore USA into the Gulf of Mexico. That does not sound like a deficit-cutting, jobs- creating proposal to me.

H.R. 2021 purports to simply reduce the amount of time it takes to get a permit to drill, but it also gives Big Oil a free pass on having to properly account for the toxic pollution it releases on the Outer Continental Shelf. It moves the geographic point where emissions are measured from offshore, near the drilling location, to an onshore point many miles away.

This change would clearly weaken public health protection for oil workers--are we interested in them?--fishermen--are we interested in them?--recreational boaters, not to mention all those who do business or make a living in our coastal communities. Apparently, it's the old out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach; what you can't see won't hurt you. After the BP oil spill just last year, such an approach should be dismissed as reckless.

One year ago today, oil was gushing into the gulf and toxic emissions were streaming into the air. But if this bill passes, the same level of Clean Air Act protections that gulf oil workers, fishermen, and coastal residents relied on to fight BP for damages would no longer apply in the gulf or anywhere else.

Let's be clear. In this bill, the rules don't apply to Shell. Shell wants to drill in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska without monitoring at the source. I get it. We all get it. But that isn't prudent; that isn't fair; that isn't safe.

Here are the facts this bill would cover up:

Shell's plans to drill for oil in the Arctic would dump as much particulate matter into the air as over 825,000 cars traveling 12,000 miles; as much CO2 as the annual household emissions of 21,000 people; and more than 1,000 times of NO2, a noxious pollutant that causes respiratory illness. This is according to Shell's own permit applications. The pollution may be emitted from rigs or vessels far offshore, but the effects are felt miles away by native populations with vibrant fishing communities by the coast.

If Shell Oil or any other company wants to do business on the Outer Continental Shelf, they need to demonstrate that they can meet standards set forth in the Clean Air Act. I mean, that's just fundamental. Instead, they have succeeded in getting Republicans here in Congress to waste taxpayers' time by pushing bills granting them exemptions from the rules at the expense of public health and the environment. In fact, by creating this loophole, H.R. 2021 would actually further complicate the permitting process and increase expenses for all parties involved.

The California Air Resources Board, which oversees oil and gas permitting in my State, testified on this very point in committee. This bill, they said, will require more time and expense to properly model onshore emission impacts. Districts may incur added cost and delay to deploy an adequate onshore monitoring network and obtain data sufficient to establish a baseline--costs that will be passed on to the permit applicants.

As a ``jobs and energy permitting'' measure, therefore, this bill would fail on both counts while doing real harm to air quality in California and many of the 20 other coastal States. It will certainly achieve the goal of increasing oil company profits at the cost of everyone else.

I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and oppose this dirty air loophole.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again draw our attention to the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military.

But, first, I want to mention the disturbing Government Accountability Office report released last week which showed that patients and staff have been raped and sexually assaulted in the VA. There were 284 reports of sexual assault which occurred between January 2007 and July 2010. There were 67 classified as rape, 185 as inappropriate touching, 13 as forced oral sex, eight as forceful medical examinations, and 11 as ``other.''

While this is not as widespread as rape and sexual assault in the military, it is yet another example where government has lacked in protecting the men and women in uniform who serve our Nation. One assault is one too many. VA facilities should be a place for aid and comfort, not for abuse.

The House Veterans Affairs' Committee held a hearing on this issue just Monday. Congress must make it a priority to hold the VA accountable and ensure that this does not happen again. As I said during my last speech on this issue, I have set up an email account so survivors of rape and sexual assault in the military can tell their stories. The address is: stopmilitaryrape@ mail.house.gov.

Today, I want to share the story of Private Jessica Kenyon. Mr. Speaker, I must warn my colleagues that some of the language is raw. Private Kenyon served in the Army from August 2005 until August 2006. Her allegation is as follows:

During training at Fort Eustis, Private Kenyon's teaching sergeant began to harass her. He constantly touched her, and made sexual jokes and comments to her. She did not believe it would be effective to report the teaching sergeant, because her unit commander was openly misogynistic. He was known to say, ``This unit never had any problems until females came into it.''

In December 2005, while Private Kenyon was home for the holidays, she was raped by a member of the Army National Guard. At that point, she reported both the sexual harassment by the drill instructor and the rape to an Army sexual assault response coordinator. The Army official advised her to put the rape ``on the back burner'' and focus on the sexual harassment. Private Kenyon then discussed the rape with Command, who advised that it would be used against her in promotional reviews if she chose to pursue prosecution.

After she reported the harassment and rape, she was ostracized and retaliated against by her fellow soldiers. This retaliation followed her to her next assignment at Camp Humphreys in Korea. When she arrived, the sergeant advised that he had received calls warning him about her. He then made a unit-wide announcement, cautioning everyone that they ``should be careful who you talk to because they might report you.'' The sergeant and others engaged in the ongoing sexual harassment of Private Kenyon.

In the spring of 2006, one soldier--a specialist and squad leader-- sexually assaulted Private Kenyon. He put his hand under her shirt and on her breasts, and tried to make her touch his penis. She fought him off.

Private Kenyon reported the assault to Command. The assailant denied the

sexual assault, and failed a lie detector test as a result. He then recanted his testimony and admitted to the harassment. He was charged with ``lying on a sworn statement,'' and was given only a nonjudicial punishment. He was demoted two ranks, but remained on active duty. The assailant got to keep his job. Private Kenyon got Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

For 16 years, Congress has been talking about this issue, and there have been 18 hearings and reports. Yet the Department of Defense still testifies that there are 19,000 rapes that occur in the military every year, and we have done nothing about it.

I urge survivors to tell their stories by writing to stopmilitaryrape@ mail.house.gov.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to Matteo Rizzo, a lifelong educator who is retiring as Superintendent of the Jefferson Elementary School District, serving the communities of Daly City and Colma, California.

In his tenure as Superintendent, Mr. Rizzo has been known for his personal involvement with all the stakeholders in his district, from teachers, to parents, to administrators and,

most importantly, the students themselves. He served as the District's representative in staff contract negotiations, oversaw budget decisions, coordinated the recruitment, selection and assignment of teachers, principals and other personnel and put his imprint on every aspect of life and learning in the Jefferson Elementary School District.

As is the case in school districts across our country, Superintendent Rizzo was asked to do the impossible--educate a diverse student population in an environment of dwindling financial resources, all the while staying focused on preparing them to achieve to their utmost ability in an increasingly competitive world.

To do this, Matteo relied heavily on the skills he gained as an Assistant Superintendent, Principal, Vice-Principal and teacher--all within the Jefferson Elementary School District. His unsurpassed institutional knowledge and commitment to bettering the lives of young people will be sorely missed and not easily replaced. Fortunately, he leaves his successor with a legacy of excellence and community involvement that can be built upon in future years.

Mr. Speaker, Matteo Rizzo is a living example of the benefits of public education and the fruits of hard work. A product of local schools, he is a graduate of San Francisco State University, where he received a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics, his California Teaching Credential and two Masters of Arts--one in Education and another in Educational Administration. He has been honored at every step of his career, including earning a ``California Distinguished School'' award for Fernando Rivera Middle School in 2001, while serving as the school's principal.

Mr. Speaker, Superintendent Rizzo has certainly earned his retirement. On behalf of the Congress of the United States of America, I wish to thank him for his exceptional service to our nation and wish him only the best as he now has time to travel with his amazing wife, Clydie, play a lot more golf, do a little more duck hunting and, as rumor has it, learn to play the guitar.

Matteo Rizzo, simply put, is a good man who spent his entire professional career doing good for his community. There's no need to tell that to the thousands of children he educated, or his son, Matthew, and daughter-in-law, Jill, but the rest of America can benefit from knowing that extremely capable and committed professionals like Matteo Rizzo show up at school districts across this country every day with no other goal than to move our country forward, one student at a time.

It is for these reasons and more that I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Superintendent Matteo Rizzo for his service.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have all witnessed an absolute employment disaster in this country. Last month, we found that the manufacturing sector slowed again. In fact, the number of Americans involved in producing goods is near its lowest point since World War

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

Mr. Chairman, in 1949 over disputes on land grants, the Congress decided to create what are called Alaska Native Corporations. There are some 200 of them that exist today. When they started out, they received moneys that were small in nature, but nonetheless helpful.

Over the course of decades, what has happened here is an abuse by our Federal employees by using this particular technique, contracting with the Alaska Native Corporation, in order not to competitively bid contracts. They are sole-source contracts. So as a result, by not competitively bidding these contracts, the taxpayers are the big losers. Let me give you just one example.

There was a contract let to the Alaska Native subsidiary that shared the lead on a $1.1 billion contract to manage missile and weapons research in Huntsville, Alabama. Two other inexperienced subsidiaries received contracts without competition worth nearly a billion dollars to provide guards to Army bases. Now, this is pretty simple, colleagues. A billion dollar contract, you run it through the ANC. The result is you don't have to competitively bid it. And what happened here is the work was passed on to Wackenhut, and they overpaid by 25 percent on the contract compared with deals for the same work awarded through competitive bids, auditors later found.

So here is a billion dollar contract; you run it through the ANC; you spend 25 percent more of taxpayer dollars. This is real money. We are talking $250 million overspent because the ANC was used.

Now, you may say, but at least it is going to Alaska Natives. Well, my friends, it is not going to Alaska Natives. What happens, for the most part, is the Alaska Native shareholders receive about $305 per year as a result.

Now, let's look at just one contract for the Sitnasuak. There was a contract for $220 million. There was $14 million worth of profits. Each of the shareholders received $305. But guess what? The people that received most of the money were the nonnatives that were hired. In fact, the consulting firm based in the Bethesda home of James Nunes, a nonnative hired to help run the corporation, he received the tidy sum of $6.4 million last year; his CFO, $1 million; his executive vice president, $470,000; and his COO, $430,000. So that's where the money went.

My amendment would level the playing field and essentially treat all section 8(a) businesses the same. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds in this act to be used to award noncompetitively bid contracts to ANCs, Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in an amount in excess of the competitive bidding threshold that other section 8 participants are subject to. That is for a $6.5 million manufacturing contract. If it's under 6.5, you don't have to competitively bid. If it's over 6.5, you would have to.

Again, Members, this is an affront to the American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Offered By: Ms. Speier

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Speier

Amendment No. 16: Page 88, line 21, after ``that'' insert

``(1)''.

Page 88, line 23, before the period insert ``; and (2) the

image retention capabilities of all deployed advanced imaging

technology utilized by the Transportation Security

Administration to screen passengers and crews at checkpoints

in airports in the United States have been disabled''.

Offered By: Ms. Speier

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Speier

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Offered By: Ms. Speier

Amendment No. 19: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: