Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Texas and his insight in this amendment. I was a prosecutor in a former life, and we care a lot about due process, making sure that the government can't take something from a private individual just because they want to take it.

As an American, I know that protecting intellectual property is a cornerstone of our free enterprise system. That is why I am concerned about the CFTC's rule on automated trading,

which takes the unprecedented step of requiring a wide array of market participants engaged in algorithmic trading to maintain a source code repository and make it available for inspection by the CFTC or the Department of Justice without a subpoena.

Now, this is highly sensitive source code. This is intellectual property that helps the functionality of our marketplace, and to think that this kind of sensitive data can be taken by the Federal Government without a subpoena should shock our conscience. There are times when the government should get this information; but if they should have it, they should be able to use a subpoena and lay out the cause and the case for why they need to have it.

That is not just my only concern. But the CFTC is potentially going to be taking this source code from all different market players and holding it in a warehouse or a repository, and so we have a concern for hacking. It has been a big conversation as of late. But instead of a foreign entity hacking in to individual companies, they just have to hack the CFTC and they get all the source code. Just think of the malicious things that can happen if you have the source code of market players, how you can disrupt it, how you can take it down. It is absolutely frightening.

So I think we should have great pause, take a little time to reflect on our Constitution, and continue to respect and support due process, which means, if the government wants this information, they should have a subpoena, lay out their case, and that is the avenue by which they get it, not just because they want it.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Again, as an American, when the government wants to take very secure intellectual property and data, we do have this belief that they should be able to get a subpoena to access it. Again, we don't have a disagreement that the CFTC, in circumstances, we want them to get access to this information.

But highly sensitive intellectual property, we think, similar data, should require a subpoena.

If the gentleman would yield, is the gentleman saying that if the government just wants highly sensitive and intellectual property they should be able to go in and just ask for it and require it to be delivered?

But it is the government.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that in the proposed rule there is no requirement for a subpoena. That doesn't exist. Now, they might have told you that they want to reform that rule, but that is not the way the proposed rule stands today. Again, if our government wants information from the private sector, we all believe they should have a subpoena for it, number one.

Again, on the concern of hacking, I wrote the Chair of the CFTC and asked for additional information about how they can preserve and protect this very sensitive information, and, in essence, they said: We can protect it because we say we can protect it. That doesn't give me great confidence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the ranking member talk about this bill tonight and you would think the sky is falling if this CLO portion of our package is passed. The problem with that argument is that 53 of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee, with Republicans, voted to pass this package last year. Only three Democrats dissented--only three. Then it passed this House floor by a voice vote.

If this bill was so disastrous for the American economy, I would ask my good friend across the aisle: At 9 o'clock on a Tuesday night where Members of Congress have nothing going on, where are the Democrats? Where is the outrage with this package?

There is only one. There is only one, because many Democrats in the last Congress voted for this bill because they agreed with it. It didn't get anywhere because it fell into Harry Reid's trash bin.

The Volcker rule directed under Dodd-Frank was supposed to stop big banks from using insured customer funds to engage in risky investments. CLOs had a default rate of less than one-half of 1 percent. These are safe. This wasn't the cause of the financial crisis. The cause was Fannie and Freddie securitizing loans that had no documentation, no verification of income, and subprime mortgages. In Dodd-Frank, the root cause of the financial crisis wasn't addressed because Fannie and Freddie weren't even brought up.

When we talk about Dodd-Frank, the ranking member is so concerned about Dodd-Frank being chipped away, but the CLO issue wasn't even in Dodd-Frank. Section 619 of Dodd-Frank states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or

restrict the ability of a banking entity or nonbank financial

company supervised by the Federal Reserve Board to sell or

securitize loans in a manner otherwise permitted by law.

CLOs were excluded in Dodd-Frank, which the ranking member voted for. But not only that, in the first proposal of the Volcker rule, CLOs weren't even included.

They were not included. It was only in the final rule that we realized that CLOs were so dangerous.

This is a political ploy. Join the American people, join common sense, and join some of your fellow Democrats. Let's support this reform package.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the chairman of the Financial Services Committee for his tenacity and hard work to make sure the American taxpayer is protected, on the hook just a little bit less for the next terrorism attack that could happen in our country, and the private sector is on a little bit more.

I am encouraged by this bipartisan bill because it ensures that my constituents in central, northern, and western Wisconsin can purchase affordable terrorism risk insurance. This 6-year reauthorization is a backstop for all Americans. This is not just a bill for New York, as my friends have mentioned, or Chicago or L.A., but it helps

small town America. If you have a small mall in your community or for Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin, they can purchase terrorism risk insurance. The reauthorization of this program is incredibly important.

I want to note one other important part, and that is the requirement that we have a community banker as part of the Federal Reserve, making sure that as the Fed goes in to a larger role with rules and regulations, they have a perspective and a view that takes into account small community banks all around America that right now are being crushed by overburdensome rules and regulations.

I commend the chairman on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador) for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his kind remarks about my ads, which I know there weren't many positive ads in the Duluth market, but I did have one. So I appreciate that, Mr. Nolan, and thank you for your support of what is a very important bill for folks in northern Wisconsin.

I have a picture of what this actual lighthouse looks like right off the community of Ashland. This bill, H.R. 4049, is the bill that will transfer the Ashland Breakwater Light from the Coast Guard to the National Park Service.

This lighthouse has stood here for over 100 years, standing strong on the shores of Lake Superior in dark nights and in storms, guarding our ships in their safe passage to our harbor, but also welcoming back travelers who have left the greater Ashland community and on the way home.

I had a chance to live in Ashland for 10 years, raising my children. My second-born son was born there. I think my third, fourth, and fifth were born there as well. I lose count after a while, but it is a great community. This lighthouse is a big part of our identity in Ashland.

Right now, the lighthouse has an uncertain future because the Coast Guard has indicated several times, most recently in 2012, that they are going to give up management of the lighthouse. No public entity, aside from the National Park Service's Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have stepped forward and indicated that they would obtain and maintain this very important lighthouse in our community.

Absent this legislation, there is no guarantee that this historic lighthouse would be maintained and continue to operate and be accessible for educational purposes. H.R. 4049 will allow the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to maintain the lighthouse alongside, as Mr. Nolan and I think Mr. Labrador mentioned, eight other lighthouses they maintain.

Just a little trip down history lane: in 1986, the Coast Guard transferred eight of these lighthouses to the National Park Service, but they didn't transfer this one. All we are doing right now is saying let's redraw that line and include this one with the other eight, so the National Park Service can now manage this lighthouse as well.

If I were looking at this bill, I might say, ``Well, I have a concern if I am a fisherman or a boater who might use the waters outside the lighthouse.'' I can guarantee you that the way this is written and the way the line is drawn there will be no additional rules or regulations coming from the Feds that are going to affect your ability to fish or boat right around the lighthouse.

We have adequately addressed that concern in this House by having so many different folks come together, people across the aisle who share a border and a lake, but also share a love for the environment and all it has to offer.

We also have support of the National Park Service who supports this bill; the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Wisconsin DNR; the Wisconsin Historical Society; the Ashland Chamber of Commerce, which is very important; the city of Ashland; and a lot of local outdoor recreational communities.

With that, I would urge passage of H.R. 4049, and I want to thank everyone for their support for what is a very important bill to my community in northern Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for all of his work on this legislation.

I am from Wisconsin. I have the central to northern part of the State. In my part of the State--and for the State as a whole--we value our natural resources. We value our wildlife. We have people who love to hunt, fish, bike, ski, and hike. It is part of our culture and our community.

We have many organizations that work hard to promote conservation. We have hunting groups, sportsmen groups, conservation organizations, State and local DNR organizations. Many of them have come together to protect the gray wolf population in Wisconsin, so much so that it has become healthy, and the gray wolf has been taken off and delisted from the Endangered Species Act.

However, not all organizations come at this with a pure heart. We have some whose main purpose and priority is filing lawsuits and suing the government under the Endangered Species Act. It is these sue-and- settle tactics that don't advance the cause of preserving our environment, and they aren't good for the American taxpayer.

What is more, many of these lawsuits are funded by way of Federal tax dollars to support the litigation, so in essence, we are spending tens of millions of dollars of hardworking Americans' tax dollars to sue ourselves.

So I think it is important that we have transparency in government. If an

organization is suing the Federal Government under the Endangered Species Act and they are using Federal money, let's disclose it. Let's all see it.

We might come together and say that is a good use of our Federal tax dollars, or we might say that is outrageous that we should be funding suits against ourselves.

This is a commonsense amendment. I would ask my colleagues to support it.

I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of my legislation. We don't know.

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that money is fungible. To the point that this is going to cost a lot of money, I would disagree.

All we are asking for is that if you receive Federal money and you are suing the Federal Government, that you disclose it. You don't have to go on a witch-hunt. You don't have to go find it.

If you receive these dollars and you are suing the Federal Government, tell us. If the gentleman is correct, there won't be any disclosure, but if what I suspect is true, there will be a lot of disclosure, and the American people will see how their tax money is being used to sue themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I would note in closing that good government is a government that has transparency, and we should know how our tax dollars are being used. This is not overburdensome. This is a simple request that if you use hard-earned taxpayer money to sue the Federal Government under the Endangered Species Act, the Federal taxpayers know how their money is being spent.

This makes sense. It doesn't cost any money. It is not a hardship, so let's stand together. Let's work together, and let's make sure we have full knowledge in how this money is being used.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the work that Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller have put into this bill.

My amendment today has to do with the issue of privacy. Listen, technology has been a great thing for America. It has allowed better communication and connectivity amongst our friends and our family members.

With email, cell phones, text, and pictures, we are able to share very intimate parts of our lives with those who are closest to us, but it is not always used with the purest of hearts. Many Americans, including many young Americans, have been concerned about the data collection that comes from the NSA about Americans' emails, texts, and phone records.

We have just learned recently about the information that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is collecting on the American citizenry. They are collecting information on nearly 600 to 800 million credit cards in America.

They are also teaming up with FHFA to form a database that collects information on Americans about their race, their religion, their sex, their payment history, their credit scores, the number of children that they have, their date of birth, their Social Security number.

They have access to all of this information, and I think most Americans would say that is too much information for the government to have.

It just doesn't happen in government though. It also happens in the private sector, without Americans' permission or consent.

My amendment is narrowly focused on this demonstration project, but it requires those schools, universities, and colleges who participate that when they enter into an agreement with an outside company and that outside company can actually sell the personally identifiable information of students to third parties--whether it is for advertisement or just basic data collection for research--they actually have to give notice to the students that their information is going to be sold, and they have give an opportunity for the students to opt out, that their information not be sold to third-party vendors.

This is about empowering students, giving them the power and control over their personally identifiable information, and if they choose to have it sold, so be it. They give permission, just like when they make a post on Facebook or they send a tweet on Twitter, but if they don't give consent, let's not allow schools to take their information and sell it without their permission.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in support of our students across the country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Listen, I would just make the point to my good friend from Colorado, this is common sense.

If you are able to take a poll of university students--college students and say: Listen, there is an amendment on the floor today that would give you power over your personally identifiable information so schools can't sell it and it can't be used for advertisement or data collection, would you support that amendment, to empower you with your personally identifiable information?

I think the answer would be a resounding ``yes.'' And I have worked with the committee to narrowly tailor this amendment specifically for this demonstration project.

Frankly, I am one who believes this should apply to colleges and universities across the board empowering students. I think if you talk to 20-year-olds and 24-year-olds around the country and what they think about the NSA infringing upon their privacy, they are the ones that were outraged by it.

So I think this makes sense. I guess I am disappointed in the opposition. I believe in our youth in America. I believe they should have the right to their data and how their data is used. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant Anton F. Jacks for receiving the Legion d'Honneur for U.S. Veterans Award for heroic service in connection with military operations in Lorient, France.

Sergeant Jacks committed an exceptionally heroic action on August 31, 1944, while serving in the Army Corps of Engineers, Company ``A'', 25th Armored Engineer Battalion, in the United States Army.

On that day, Sergeant Jacks was assigned to guard a farm house that served as an allied forces outpost in the vicinity of Lorient. While on guard, Sergeant Jacks made the heroic decision to establish a series of booby traps around the perimeter to provide protection for his unit and innocent French civilians in the area. When a unit of German soldiers attempted to attack and overthrow the farm house, the traps prevented the German soldiers from infiltrating the allied perimeter.

As stated by Captain Richard H. Brooks, ``the outpost was attacked by a numerically superior force of German soldiers. At 0845 the attacking enemy, failing to penetrate the courageous fighting men of the outpost, withdrew.''

Mr. Speaker, without question, Sergeant Jacks is a hero. His personal bravery, and heroic conduct are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Corps of Engineers, and the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a very grateful nation, please join me in recognizing and thanking Sergeant Anton F. Jacks for his acts of valor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth for her bravery, service and sacrifice on February 10th, 1944, in Anzio, Italy.

Second Lt. Ainsworth hailed from the small Wisconsin town of Glenwood City, where she is remembered for her service. In 1942 she entered the United States Army Nurse Corps and deployed to Tunisia, then to Anzio, Italy. Although the risk of serving in this high actions area was great, Lt. Ainsworth did not waiver from her commitment to serve her country.

On February 10th, 1944 Lt. Ainsworth's hospital tent came under heavy artillery fire in an area many described as ``hell's half acre''. With complete disregard for herself, she brought to safety forty-two patients to lessen the chance of their further injury. Lt. Ainsworth was hit by enemy fire and succumb to her wounds six days later. At just twenty-four years old she was the only Wisconsin service woman to make the ultimate sacrifice during World War II, due to enemy fire.

Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth was recognized posthumously for her gallant actions by being awarded with a Silver Star, Purple Heart, and a Red Cross Bronze Medal.

As Glenwood City and the town of Anzio, Italy commemorate the 70th anniversary of her death this year, Lt. Ainsworth's courageous actions are witnessed today by the children of the soldiers she saved, who would not be with us if not for her heroic sacrifice. She personified American heroism and for that, Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Lt. Ainsworth for her acts of valor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern for the administration's nuclear negotiations with Iran.

This administration has a questionable track record on diplomacy. Just 3 weeks ago, it put five Taliban commanders back on the battlefield. We are witnessing an unraveling of our hard-fought gains in Iraq because of the administration's inability to negotiate a status of forces agreement before our withdrawal of troops. Syria is in flames; al Qaeda is on the move; the Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan as we talk about a drawdown. And the list goes on, Mr. Speaker.

The administration has, time and time again, demonstrated terrible judgment when it comes to foreign policy. There are real concerns by experts who have testified in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the deal in regard to Iran's nuclear weapons not just leaves the region, but the United States, less safe.

Mr. President, put down the pool cue, pick up the map, find your way to Capitol Hill, and let's work together to make sure we don't have a nuclear Iran.

Mr. Speaker, on ``National Paul Bunyan Day,'' it is fitting to announce the incredibly deserving winner of the 2014 Paul Bunyan ``Service Above Self'' Award. Wisconsin's 7th District is home to the final resting place of Paul Bunyan, but the legend of this larger-than-life lumberjack is alive and well. Paul Bunyan is a symbol of might, the willingness to work hard, and the resolve to overcome all obstacles. This year's Paul Bunyan ``Service Above Self'' Award winner is Dennis Boucher of Marshfield. He embodies the larger-than-life spirit of Paul Bunyan and has gone above and beyond to improve our 7th District community.

Rural homelessness is a prevalent issue in our area. About 2 years ago, a group of community leaders, including Dennis, got together to brainstorm ways to address this issue. Discussions led to the local St. Vincent de Paul Society, which had a plot of land available that could be used to build transitional housing.

Dennis took up the mighty challenge of leading the effort to establish a transition housing facility for those in need in Marshfield.

According to his nominator, ``From the moment of his involvement, Dennis has never wavered. He has, with quiet confidence and supreme faith, pushed the project forward such that today there is a fourteen apartment family homeless shelter in Marshfield. Currently, there are nine families housed there; soon to be eleven.

``Dennis has spent hours as a volunteer, charitable donation coordinator, construction worker, janitor, cook, and now as a volunteer to provide oversight to the shelter as we build a base of volunteers and paid staff to assure 24/7 supervision of the facility. There is no task too big or too small for Dennis to address with all of his energy. Dennis Boucher's impact on our community will continue for years to come.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize this honorable man. On behalf of this body and my constituents, I'd offer to Dennis our congratulations and thanks for his invaluable commitment to our community and the people we strive to serve.

I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to engage in a debate on global warming, especially after the winter we had in Wisconsin last winter. The bottom line is last winter it was incredibly cold in Wisconsin, and we saw home heating fuel prices for some of my constituents go up by four times, and that was if they were able to get home heating fuels.

I don't think this is the end of it because there has been a war on energy, and that war on energy makes it more difficult for my constituents to access energy. I think we have to leave those debates aside right now and look at, in the current structure, can we have some reform that actually helps people across the country when these crises amount.

What this does is doesn't make us look to the Department of Transportation--which, by the way, last winter they were quick to act. We don't have to look for Congress to have some quick legislation to minimize the trucking hours of service so we can get fuel into places like northern Wisconsin.

What we are going to do is we are going to empower Governors. Let Governors notice when there is a crisis and let them move quickly so we can have one piece of the burden alleviated--the hours of service requirement--so our trucks can go to the places where we have home heating fuel and bring it to northern Wisconsin, we can bring in more supply.

This was such a crisis, we have people in Wisconsin who have a hard time paying their energy bills when we have normal prices. But when prices go up by four times, or when it is 40 below and they can't get home heating fuel, this is a crisis. Any day we have to wait for the Department of Transportation or for Congress to act is a day that we have prices continuing to go up or we don't have access to our consumers, to our constituents, to our people.

So I think this is a commonsense approach that leaves the global warming debate aside, the war on energy aside, and looks to our Governors, gives them authority to make decisions in this one small piece, to allow the hours of service waived in these emergencies so we can get fuel to places where they have a shortage.

I think this makes sense. There will be plenty of time to debate the greater energy issues that we have in the country, and I think that is a debate that we have to have, but that is not the place here. The debate on global warming, we can have that, too, especially

after the winter we had in Wisconsin last winter.

This makes sense. Let's empower Governors. Let's make sure we protect those Americans who live in the northern region of the country that rely on home heating fuel to heat their homes. Let's make sure we are going to allow them access, by way of their Governor, and the Governor's quick action.

So I appreciate the House bringing up this action from Senator Thune, and I would urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, in central and northern Wisconsin, logging is an incredibly important industry for our community and for our economy.

In Mosinee, Wisconsin, we have a very large paper mill. A vast majority of the wood that feeds that paper mill comes from northern Wisconsin. What happens is, the wood is harvested in northern Wisconsin and it comes down Highway 51, where the weight limit for trucks is 98,000 pounds. In Wausau, Wisconsin, Highway 51 turns into I-39. It is at that time that the weight limit goes from 98,000 pounds down to 80,000 pounds. At that point, those logging trucks are still 12 miles away from their destination, the paper mill.

So what happens is our logging trucks go off the interstate and go onto our back roads--through our communities, through our neighborhoods, through downtown--where we have very tight-fitted areas and much narrower roads, all so they can make it to the paper mill.

What my amendment would do, it would allow for a 12-mile extension so those trucks can come from our forests in northern Wisconsin and stay on the freeway that extra 12 miles to get to the paper mill.

This amendment is an amendment that affects the safety of my community--my constituents--and it would have a small impact on our economy so those trucks have a straight route to the paper mill.

With that, I would ask that my colleagues support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, what I would just ask then is that the chairman and the ranking member, when this goes to conference committee, if they would consider the issue that I brought up today, and consider my constituents and the safety of my constituents in central and northern Wisconsin.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this town, this Congress, spends a lot of money to alleviate the pain of poverty, of homelessness, and hunger, but a majority of that money is focused on urban centers. I don't take issue with that. There is a lot of poverty in the urban parts of our country. But so often, the rural parts of America are forgotten.

I have to tell you, coming from rural America, the pain of poverty is just as great, and it affects our communities in rural America just like in urban America. Oftentimes, it can be a lot more complicated, poverty in rural America.

The face of poverty is different in rural America. Instead of having families living on the street, oftentimes we see neighbors, two, three families move into a single-room apartment so they can give their kids shelter.

Last year I hosted a homelessness and hunger summit where I brought in people who provide food and shelter for folks in rural Wisconsin. We had a conversation about what we can do better out of Washington to help them address the pain of this poverty in our community. In regard to the homeless shelters, their main point was that they need flexibility so that they can address the risks of homelessness in our community.

In 2009, a program was included in the HEARTH Act called the Rural Housing Stability Assistance program. This program allows rural communities to serve individuals that don't necessarily meet HUD's definition of homelessness but are, in fact, without a stable home of their own.

My amendment is very simple and doesn't cost a lot of money. It would

allow $10 million to be made available for the Rural Housing Stability Assistance program.

Now, take a look at how much money we spend on homelessness--$2.1 billion. My amendment asks for $10 million to be used for the Rural Housing Stability Assistance program. Let's not forget rural America.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I think this is important. I appreciate the chairman's support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I think most Americans are aware that the President has recently stated that he intends to transfer the core functions of the Internet to an international or foreign body. What my amendment does today will prohibit the President from using any of these funds to relinquish control of those core functions to the Internet.

I think this is an incredibly important amendment because America and our zest for freedom of speech has made sure that the Internet is an open forum for dialogue, an open forum for ideas. By relinquishing these rights or core functions to a foreign body, I don't think we will retain the current system of the Internet and the current rights of freedom of speech that the Internet currently enjoys.

If you look at stakeholders, you have a say in how the Internet is run. I think when we use the term ``stakeholders,'' what we are really referring to are foreign governments and corporations. I think we have to ask the question: Do we think that China, that Russia, that Iran, who have a say in the core functions of the Internet, have the same concern for the freedom of speech that we Americans do?

I think it is important that this institution use its control of the purse strings to limit the President's authority to transfer those core functions to this foreign body.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).