Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on the last bill, the TRIA bill, when we were still arguing about it, some people on the other side accused people like me, who support the TRIA bill, of being in favor of corporate welfare. Now, as a liberal on most issues, I don't think many people would confuse me with someone who was generally in favor of corporate welfare, but I will take it.

On this bill--because I am going to oppose it on one basic provision--I am going to be called ``against jobs.''

Rhetoric is cheap. Titles of bills don't mean anything. And in this bill, particularly the provision that was just spoken about, title V-- there are plenty of things in this bill that I like that I would be happy to vote for. Bring them up separately, and I will. There are a couple of things here that I don't like too much, but we can find common ground on it. But all of that pales when you look at one provision in here that guts the Volcker rule.

It is simple: in 2006, collateralized debt obligations pretty much brought the world economy to its knees and hurt not just Wall Street, but hurt me, hurt my neighbors, hurt my family, and hurt a lot of average Americans because we allowed our financial service industry to gamble with somebody else's money.

And of course they gambled. They won a lot of money. And then when they lost, they didn't lose their money. They lost our money, and we had to come in with a bailout.

This is a corporate bailout--not with taxpayer money, but with depositor money, depositors who are not interested in giving their money to an institution so that they can gamble it on risky items that they will see no benefit from. That is what the Volcker rule says: if you want to gamble, use your money. Good luck. Don't gamble with my money unless I say so.

That is all the Volker rule says. It has worked pretty well. The economy is recovering. Everybody knows that. Everybody agrees with it.

This bill will allow three, only three of our Wall Street institutions--which control 70 percent of the collateralized loan obligation business; three of them control 70 percent of the business--to gamble with depositors' money again without those depositors having a say in it.

When they collapse and depositors lose their money, those of you who vote for this bill will have to explain it to them. This is unnecessary. It is inappropriate. And we should not be voting for this bill, mostly because of that single provision.

Mr. Speaker, greater, more meaningful participation for Taiwan in international organizations is based on the need for the international community to marshal all of its expertise in meeting today's global challenges. For example, in a world trying to contain what is a grave Ebola epidemic, it would make no sense for a nation with Taiwan's resources and expertise to be completely shut out of the deliberations of the World Health Organization. It took the SARS crisis for Taiwan to achieve observer status, but its participation should be maximized as much as possible, given that global health crises may grow more frequent with increased globalization.

Additionally, while I welcome the invitation that was extended to Taiwan by the leadership of the International Civil Aviation Organization to attend last September's assembly, Taiwan should at the very least have an ongoing seat at the table. The number of air travelers has grown, the threat of terrorism has not dissipated, and yet Taiwan is unable to receive the real-time safety information made available to all ICAO members.

These are just two examples of how the world does not benefit from Taiwan's isolation from the technical and expert deliberations of international organizations. There are others. Working to assist Taiwan to gain entry as an observer into the ICAO, just as we did in the case of the World Health Assembly and as we must do on other fronts, is the right thing to do for Taiwan, for the United States, and for the world. I urge my colleagues to redouble our efforts on this front.

Offered By: Mr. Capuano

Amendment No. 3: Page 104, beginning on line 22, strike

section 626.

Mr. Speaker, due to obligations in my district, I was unavoidably detained in Massachusetts on June 19, 2014. I was therefore unable to cast a vote on rollcall votes 318 through 326. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

``No'' on rollcall 318.

``Yea'' on rollcall 319.

``Yea'' on rollcall 320.

``No'' on rollcall 321.

``Yea'' on rollcall 322.

``No'' on rollcall 323.

``Yea'' on rollcall 324.

``Yea'' on rollcall 325.

``Yea'' on rollcall 326.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of H.R. 4268. Very simply put, this is a State highway that already has an exemption to the weight limits pursuant to State law. They are changing the State highway into an interstate highway, therefore, requiring us to provide a waiver for this very simple item.

As the gentleman before me said, it is a noncontroversial item, but it is a necessary step that we take.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi). As everyone knows, Puerto Rico has a Resident Commissioner here. He has the luxury of a 4- year term. We all envy that.

At the same time, it is an important position to have and a position that we should listen to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), with whom I agree on almost everything, with the sole exception of his favorite baseball team, which, of course, should be the Red Sox, but maybe someday it will be.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez), with whom I had the honor of serving on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Pierluisi and Mr. Posey for proposing this bill, and I hope that it passes as quickly as possible.

I would just simply like to add one thing, sitting and listening to these things: particularly in World War II, there was never a question by almost anyone about people of German American heritage or Italian American heritage fighting on behalf of the United States of America-- even in the European theater. Yet people had questions about other ethnicities which I think is a blot on the history of this great country, and I couldn't be prouder to be a very small, little part to be here today to try to make amends for those past sins and to say thank you to the Americans who served this great country and helped me live a better life.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My father would never forgive me if I didn't speak for a minute on this particular bill. I played my first round of golf in the year of 1960, and at that time, the rising star on the course was

the Golden Bear. My father was a crazy, crazy golfer. I, myself, am a recovering golfer. Since I was never that good, I decided to give it up.

We have heard about the incredible statistics accumulated by Jack Nicklaus, and that is all well and good, and I respect that and honor it, and certainly, he is one of, if not the best golfer in history, but that is not really what I want to speak about.

I want to speak about his character, and I don't know him personally, but the way he projects it, and I want to speak about the work he has done since he stepped off the competitive field.

As we have heard already, he is an incredible philanthropist. He has gone around the country helping people do good work to help others, people he doesn't know. He stood for many of the right things in this country during a difficult time.

For those reasons, to me, having been a great athlete, it would have been very easy for him simply to retire, go count his money, make more money, and just fade away. That is the easy thing to do.

The hard thing to do is to then transition yourself into another great leader, a person who leads society. That is what Jack Nicklaus has done. That is why I am very, very glad to be here today, to be a small part of this.

I thank Mr. Tiberi for his hard work on this. I know he assaulted me on it right away. I would like to know who the 130-odd Members you didn't get were; and I will tell you, again, this is a well-deserved honor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would just like to add my voice to comments about Mr. Peres.

Having met him, I will tell you that he is a totally respectable gentleman who has been through more difficult times during his life than hopefully anyone I know will ever have to go through; and yet he has survived them all with class, with dignity, with the ability to bring people together. Again, I hope this bill passes unanimously.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, though I intend to speak, I want to reserve the balance of my time and allow the gentlewoman from Texas, who was the lead sponsor on this bill, to speak before I do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank Ms. Granger in particular for bringing this bill forward. I was proud to be a small part in supporting this and trying to help push it forward. I am glad we are here today.

I want to be real clear. A lot of people think of war as nothing more than destruction, which that is the main function is to destroy your enemy. They don't think sometimes what it is all about, particularly in the case of World War II. In the case of World War II, it was about a way of life. It was about a whole set of societal values. One set valued art and culture, even the art and culture we may not understand. I am not understanding of many of the fine works of art, but I appreciate how difficult they are, and I appreciate others appreciating.

In a war, it would be the easiest thing in the world to simply destroy everything, steal everything, and just move forward. In this particular case, the United States of America took the lead, but we weren't alone. The Monuments Men was made up of people from 13 different countries simply trying to preserve a piece of our culture, our shared culture.

The Monuments Men was not made up of warriors, yet they became warriors. They were made up of artists; they were made up of museum directors; they were made up of curators--people who had been taught the value and understood the value of fine art. They went to war to protect and preserve it, because without that continuing link of culture, you would have to ask: Wouldn't we be a little less than who we are today?

Their memory today is very important, particularly those who still survive. The mention has already been made about how many pieces of art--5 million pieces of art. They weren't just pictures on a wall. They were also figurines. There were religious artifacts, across the board. Five million pieces protected, kept for future generations, recovered from people who would otherwise steal them for their own personal use, probably would have destroyed them when they saw the end of their own culture.

I want to speak today of the one American who served in what I think is a pretty typical story of who these people were. The one American who was killed in action in this particular unit, his name was Walter Huchthausen. He was born in Perry, Oklahoma, educated at the University of Minnesota and Harvard University, where he earned a master's degree in architecture in 1930. He wasn't ROTC. He wasn't militarily trained. He was an instructor at RPI in Troy, New York, and then director of the department of design at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, in my own district, from 1935 to 1939. Then he went to the faculty at the University of Minnesota until he enlisted in 1942--not got drafted, enlisted--yes, to protect America, but also to take his special expertise, to do something special in a difficult situation. He was killed in action when he was caught in a firefight. As usual, in many military actions, it wasn't supposed to happen then and there.

I think that tells you something about who these people were. They were there trying to help the next generation and generations to come maintain that line of connection, and they did it. For that, they deserve this honor; they deserve our undying gratitude.

With that, I want to add my thanks for their actions, my thanks to Representative Granger for allowing us do this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To be perfectly honest, I am shocked that Congress hasn't already done this--absolutely shocked. This should have been done in 1943.

The Doolittle Raid was the most important military event of its time. For those of you who don't understand it, right after Pearl Harbor, being attacked, at the time, by the strongest military in the world at the top of their game, they did catch us by surprise and destroyed our Pacific fleet.

We were sitting back trying to regroup, trying to get it going, trying to get troops going. How do we hit back? How do we prove that we can do this? The Doolittle Raid was all about that.

As you heard, a previous speaker said ``volunteers.'' Now, they were professional military, but they volunteered for this mission. Why were they asked to volunteer? Because everyone saw this as a death sentence. Nobody really thought they would ever come back. Why? Because the planes they flew were bombers, heavy bombers for those days--small compared to what we have today--flying off of aircraft carriers that, again, in today's Navy wouldn't be anything. Small aircraft carriers.

No one had ever taken a bomber off of an aircraft carrier prior to this raid. No one had ever done it. No one thought it could be done. They got within a certain mileage of Japan beyond where they were supposed to go. They were told bomb Japan, land in China. Not enough fuel to get back.

Any mission, like anything else, especially in days before good navigational tools, a lot of fuel was burned that wasn't planned on. None of them made it to their fields. Most of them crash-landed. As you heard, several of them died.

That raid took all of America and lifted our spirits. Well documented. That is why I am shocked that we are here today. Well documented. It took the entire country and made us feel like, we can do this, we can do it now, even when we are unprepared. If we can do this now, imagine what we can do when we get prepared.

The Doolittle Raid gave us the courage and the commitment to win that war. Those men were true heroes in every sense of the word. The fact that we are here today is an honor for me, but honestly, I think it is something that is well long overdue.

For those who are still living, I want to add my thanks to their bravery. Without them, I think it would have been a much longer war and a much more disheartening year or so before we really engaged in a military action that we could win.

With that, I thank the sponsor of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of those three people who voted ``no.'' I do not expect to win here today on the floor. And I want to be real clear: I do not oppose consolidated loan obligations. I support them. They are an important financial tool.

But that is not what this bill does. This bill allows risky CLOs. Most CLOs would be permitted pursuant to the Volcker Rule. If they only contained loans, they are okay. Any bank can own them to any degree.

So let's not think that somehow the Volcker Rule has killed CLOs. They have simply said they have to be what they say they are, collateralized loan obligations, not collateralized loan obligations put together with all kinds of other junk. Simple. Straightforward.

There is not going to be any fire sale. The regulators have already listened to the congressional comments, of which I was one, asking for a delay to allow the existing CLOs that do not meet the regulation to be held for 2 more years. There will be no fire sale. There has been no fire sale.

As we speak, the sale of CLOs is at a historic high. The Volcker Rule has not killed the market. They are back to almost the same levels they were at in 2007 before the crash.

Let me be clear. I agree that CLOs did not, on their own, participate in the '08 problems and that they do have a record of success. But prior to 2008, most people would have said the same thing about collateralized debt obligations. By the way, at some point, somebody has to explain to me the difference between debt and loans, but that is a different issue.

Collateralized loan obligations are important. They are a good, thoughtful way to provide capital. By the way, most of them are used for leveraged buyouts, as the example we just heard, for leveraged buyouts. Now, you can argue whether leveraged buyouts to the extent they happen are good or bad, but that is what they are mostly used for.

I also want to be real clear. Very, very, very few small, community banks have any CLOs. Over 70 percent of the collateralized loan obligations, both the ones that are allowed and disallowed, are owned by three banks. Over 70 percent are owned by three of the largest banks in the world. And by the way, almost all of those CLOs would be permitted to those three large banks.

So what are we solving here? We are pretending to save some great investment tool. It is not under threat. We are pretending that no problems could ever happen. Those are the same discussions we had in '05, '06, '07, and '08. All the risk that was being assumed comfortably and successfully prior to 2008 was perfectly fine. Those regulators are just killing America--until the crash happened, from which we are still recovering.

All we want to do is take a look at some of the riskier aspects of this financial aspect and simply say, whoa, it doesn't mean everybody can't do it. It simply means regulated banks can't do it. Private investors could still do every one of these things. Why would regulated banks be prohibited from doing only the most risky CLOs? Because they are protected by taxpayer dollars, because they are protected by the FDIC, and because we, as a society, have said that bank stability is important to the American economy.

So let's be clear: CLOs are not being killed. They are being limited in a very small way only to target the most risky CLOs. Banks and others have already adjusted to those limitations by reinvigorating the CLO market in a way that has been and would be allowed under the existing rule. But yet we have a problem.

We have a crisis that we have to solve. A handful of people will not be allowed to risk my mother's investment. That is what we are crying about. Well, I have heard that before, and it didn't turn out too well in '08. A little limitation is good for the American system. And, by the way, it is historically the system as it has been for a thousand years.

I just want to end with a quote by Paul Volcker himself. I presume Paul Volcker knows more about the economy and the markets than most people in Congress. But maybe not. Maybe some people are smarter than him. This is what he said about this bill:

This constant effort to get around the rule limiting banks'

investment in hedge funds on behalf of a few institutions who

apparently want room to resume the financing practices that

got us into trouble in the past really should end.

CLOs--straightforward and plain vanilla--are a good and important investment tool for the American economy. They should and will be allowed under the current rules. There should and will be time for people to move slowly

and thoughtfully without a fire sale out of the handful of risky investments that are there, and even those people who love those risky investments will be able to do it still, just not through a subsidized bank.

I know that I have not convinced anyone. I know that I am going to lose this vote on the floor, and I respect it. And I hope to God that my concerns are wrong and overblown. I hope that in a few years I come back and I apologize to the gentleman for my concerns, that they were overblown and unjustified. Because America will be better off if you are right. But if you are wrong, a handful of people will make a lot of money, but the rest of us will be dramatically and deeply hurt once again.

Mr. Speaker, I missed several votes this week to attend some services for Lieutenant Walsh and Firefighter Kennedy. I wish to state how I would have voted had I been present: rollcall No. 149-- ``yes''; rollcall No. 150 ``yes''; rollcall No. 152 ``no''; rollcall No. 153 ``no''.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting back in my office trying to get some desk work done and watching this debate. I had no intention of speaking, but I have just heard these arguments so many times, and they are tiring, to be perfectly honest.

So I did a little bit of work and came up with a couple of quotes I wanted to read.

This is relating to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which I have heard referenced on the other side, that talked about a 44-hour workweek and minimum wage at the time.

Here are a couple of quotes.

The act will destroy small industry . . . these ideas are

the product of those whose thinking is rooted in an alien

philosophy and who are bent upon the destruction of our whole

constitutional system and the setting up of a red-labor

communist despotism upon the ruins of our Christian

civilization.

That is a quote from Representative Cox of Georgia.

The Fair Labor Standards Acts constitutes a step in the

direction of communism, bolshevism, fascism, and nazism.

That is a quote from the National Association of Manufacturers.

The Fair Labor Standards Act would create chaos in business

never yet known to us . . . no decent American citizen can

take exception to this attitude. What I do take exception to

is any approach to a solution of this problem which is

utterly impractical and in operation would be much more

destructive than constructive to the very purposes which it

is designed to serve.

That was from Representative Lamneck of Ohio.

These arguments are not new. When are you going to get tired of being behind history? When are you going to get tired of holding the American people back?

Please find an opportunity at any case--health care, housing, education, minimum wage, anything--to move us forward. We have 80 years-plus of the same arguments against the typical legislation that simply tries to move America forward and take care of our people.

It is the same old argument, the same old rhetoric. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3370, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2013, because we need to fix the National Flood Insurance Program, create more transparency in how it is administered and get the program out of debt. This bill is a step forward in that direction. In addition to lowering rates for some policyholders who have seen sharp spikes in their annual premiums, the bill requires FEMA to implement a flood mapping program that results in technically credible flood hazard data; designate a flood insurance advocate to educate policyholders and coordinate with local officials; consult with communities before using new flood maps; and make publicly available any changes to rate tables and underwriting guidelines before instituting any such changes.

I also believe, however, that we could do more. By rushing this bill through the Congress we failed even to debate, let alone address, the Program's impact on non-primary residences--moderately priced second homes, small businesses, houses of worship, schools, non-profits. While H.R. 3370 will stop the spike in premiums for some primary homeowners, it will do nothing to keep premiums affordable for the small businesses that provide vital services to and strengthen the economies of coastal communities; and it will do nothing to ensure that the churches, schools, and non-profit institutions that anchor these communities will be able to afford their rising premiums. On the contrary, the bill includes a premium surcharge of $250 per year on second homes and non- residential properties as a way to offset its cost.

Clearly, H.R. 3370 is not perfect, but it is an improvement over the status quo and that's why I will vote for it. On balance, I feel that it is better to accept an imperfect bill than wait for a perfect measure. However, we must continue to seek opportunities to address these defects as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. I want to thank Mr. Grimm and others for bringing this bill forward.

You have heard what the bill does. I will tell you that I want to associate myself with all of the people who support it. I actually want to associate myself with some of the remarks of people who oppose it.

I think that we need to fix the problem of short funding in the flood insurance program, but I don't think we need to do it overnight, and I don't think we need to do it on the backs of middle class people with a hammer.

So I want to fix this. I think this bill is actually a step forward to say we will fix it, but we will take some time doing it to do it right so innocent people don't get hurt.

I also want to take a minute to point out some of the things that are not in this bill that people need to be aware of. This bill does not address people who own vacation homes.

I know that some people think that everyone who owns a vacation home is a multimillionaire Donald Trump. The average income of a second homeowner is about $96,000. The average value of a second home is about $150,000.

Now, you don't see most of these homes on the Home and Garden Network because they are usually on wheels. They are made out of T-111. They are just inexpensive places that people get to bring their families.

Now, most of these homes are not on the shore, but they are, not all of them, but some of them, are in flood plains. We need to take this into account when we continue to address this issue as we move forward.