Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their hard work, and also Mr. Larsen as well.

I have to confess that mentally in my mind I have a list of Republicans I wish wouldn't run for office again, but I am proud and happy to say that, Mr. Shuster, you are not on that list. I just want to congratulate you on your good work not only on this bill, but in the past on a lot of issues that affect not only the constituents in your district, but also people across this country. Thank you for your service.

I was hoping that I might come to the floor today to talk about ways that we might prevent terrorists and criminal organizations from registering aircraft in the United States. There is a Department of Transportation Inspector General report that is well known to Members here that basically lays out the case for more closely scrutinizing the registration of U.S. aircraft. They came up with a few glaring examples that I will mention here.

Recently, it was discovered that Hezbollah, through a front person, also from Lebanon, registered an aircraft here in the United States with no landing permit. In addition, we had another aircraft registered through the FAA through Wells Fargo Bank, which we understand was located in Tripoli International Airport in Libya, with no landing permit, just hours before the U.N. Security Council met to approve a no-fly zone over that country.

Similarly, we had an aircraft owned by the brother of Ghana's president but registered by the Bank of Utah, which mysteriously appeared in Tehran, Iran, in 2014, bearing an American flag emblem. This occurred, obviously, in the midst of U.S. and international sanctions. Prohibiting the travel of U.S. aircraft to Iran was the law at that point. The FAA could not explain who was operating the plane or who owned it, and the lack of transparency and accountability in the FAA's registration system is a serious national security threat.

Now, there was a time when Democrats and Republicans could work on amendments like that and they would

be accepted. I am still mystified as to where the opposition came from.

Also, public health and safety demands that the FAA take immediate steps to mitigate the impact of concentrated flight paths which come in and out of major airports around the country. They have got a new system called a NextGen RNAV system that concentrates the flights over very narrow strips of neighborhoods and in the areas adjacent to those airports. And we can do a lot, Mr. Chairman, to mitigate that damage. But that is not in this bill.

What I am here to talk about is retrofitting aircraft with noise mitigation devices known as vortex generators. These devices are lightweight and divert wind from the vents on the underside of an aircraft's wing to significantly reduce noise during descent. European carriers such as Lufthansa, British Airways, and Air France have already adapted their older Airbus aircraft with these devices, and new models now come equipped with them. My amendment, which is cosponsored by several of my colleagues on the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus, would ensure that American air carriers are following suit.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I inadvernty missed the vote for final passage of H.R. 3312, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on rollcall 694.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on behalf of the America workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 3441. Because of the modern use of temporary staffing agencies and subcontractors, the National Labor Relations Board has properly defined the term ``joint employer'' as two or more businesses who codetermine or share control over a worker's terms of employment, such as rate of pay or work schedule.

If enacted, H.R. 3441 would cripple workers' rights to collectively bargain or seek redress when workers are found to have joint employers. The opportunity to collectively bargain over wages and conditions of employment is diminished if some parties that control employment are given the option to refuse to bargain and avoid liability as employers.

As a result, this bill will open the door to widespread wage theft and equal-pay violations, and it will harm workers across the United States.

Some of my Republicans continue to argue that H.R. 3441 will provide stability for workers. As a former union president and as a labor attorney dealing with issues before the National Labor Relations Board, I urge my colleagues to stand with the American worker and oppose this disastrous bill.

Mr. Chair, I was inadvertently delayed on rollcall numbers 585 and 586. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 585 and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 586.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2464, legislation that I introduced back in May of this year to officially designate the United States Postal Service facility located at 25 New Chardon Street Lobby in Boston, Massachusetts, as the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Post Office.

This bill reflects the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of President John F. Kennedy this year, otherwise known as the JFK Centennial.

I would like to thank our former chairman, Jason Chaffetz of Utah; our current chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy); the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings); the chairman of our Subcommittee on Government Operations, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows); our ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly); and all of the Subcommittee on Government Operations for their efforts to move this legislation forward.

I would also like to thank the entire Massachusetts House delegation for their effort in sponsoring this measure.

H.R. 2464 honors the life and enduring legacy of our Nation's 35th President, John F. Kennedy, and his impassioned commitment to public service, equality, peace and diplomacy, and ensuring a better quality of life for every American. Our special remembrance of President Kennedy this year also affords us a distinct opportunity to reflect on and appreciate his vision and wisdom in the context of the many challenges we are facing as a nation today both at home and abroad.

As we grapple with difficult issues ranging from healthcare to economic reform, let us recall President Kennedy's understanding that: ``For one true measure of a nation is its success in fulfilling the promise of a better life for each of its members.''

And in contemplating issues pertaining to equality and civil rights, we would be wise to remember President Kennedy's advancement of the principle that the rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one person are threatened.

As we continue to address matters of contention with adversarial nations, we must bear in mind President Kennedy's admonition and foresight that ``civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.''

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Joseph Kennedy from the Fourth District of Massachusetts, for his work on this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 2464.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk

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

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I would like to thank Chairman Upton and Ms. Castor, the ranking member from Florida, for their articulate debate this afternoon on this important issue.

I would also like to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Slaughter, and all of the members of the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order.

This commonsense amendment will simply ensure that the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal agency with the primary jurisdiction over pipeline security on behalf of the American people, will retain a meaningful seat at the table when it comes to determinations made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, on whether to approve a pipeline construction permit.

In particular, this amendment provides that, in considering a pipeline permit application, FERC must simply consult with TSA administrators as to whether a pipeline developer is compliant with existing TSA guidelines and best practice recommendations governing pipeline security. That includes an examination of facility security, cybersecurity, and other critical measures that are designed to safeguard the American people against the threat of terrorists and cyber attacks perpetrated on the U.S. pipeline system.

While H.R. 2910 seeks to expedite the FERC review process for pipeline construction projects in the name of efficiency, we also know that recent terrorist and cyber attacks launched against pipeline facilities nationwide

have more than demonstrated that we cannot place expediency above national security and public safety.

In 2015, a domestic terrorist received a maximum 20-year sentence after pleading guilty to Federal charges relating to his use of a highly volatile explosive device to damage a natural pipeline in Texas. Four years earlier than that, a similar attack was perpetrated in Oklahoma by an individual armed with a homemade improvised explosive device.

In addition, the 2017 series on ``Pipelines in Peril,'' published by Energy and Environment News, reported that advanced cyber threats targeting U.S. pipelines have only increased and evolved over the past 5 years, following a so-called pipeline hacking spree undertaken by members of the Chinese military. The theft of sensitive data from at least 23 separate U.S. pipeline companies in 2011 and 2012 constitute the sort of cyber breach that the Congressional Research Service has described as allowing hackers the ability to ``disrupt pipeline service and cause spills, explosions, and fires all from remote locations.''

I would also like to express my concern regarding an issue that was the subject of an amendment of mine which was not ruled in order, and that is the issuance of pipeline construction permits by FERC in areas where a project site and its surrounding community is already experiencing preexisting unsafe levels of air pollutants.

In my own congressional district in Massachusetts, FERC recently approved a proposal for a natural gas compressor station in the beautiful town of Weymouth, Massachusetts, and as evidenced by the certificate of independent and quality testing conducted by Dr. Curt Nordgaard and other community stakeholders, the air quality in Weymouth is already at toxic levels of so-called criteria air pollutants such as benzene.

My amendment would have suspended the certificate issued by FERC for the Weymouth compressor station and other projects that the commission approves for construction and communities that have unsafe air quality levels.

In addition to my concerns around air quality, I have to highlight the public safety issues surrounding the route of a natural gas pipeline that FERC approved in West Roxbury, a local neighborhood in the heart of my district. The pipeline runs through a densely populated neighborhood. It runs right through an active blasting area in a quarry that is located next to a residential area, and I don't know how that happens if public safety and national security are considerations.

Whether a pipeline is blown up because of stupidity because FERC has located it in a blasting zone or it is because of a nefarious attempt of outside actors, the bottom line is that FERC should sit down and talk with TSA when they are looking at these siting decisions. The bottom line is, what this amendment will accomplish, it will require that to happen, that consultation to happen between TSA and FERC.

Mr. Chair, I ask Members to vote in support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank the gentleman very much for accepting the amendment. I agree, there may be some other areas that are not particularly addressed, such as the LNG situation. Obviously, we want to increase the level of safety with respect to LNG as well, but I understand those questions can be answered during our debate with the Senate as well and in conference.

But the bottom line is I thank him for accepting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that this is the single worst piece of legislation that I have seen in my time here in Congress, and I have been here awhile. So I have to congratulate the gentleman from Texas for putting this amalgamation of terrible ideas together.

This bill basically destroys the work that we did to try to secure the banks after the financial crisis of 2008. It harms consumers, it lets off bad actors, it hamstrings our financial regulators, and I believe it will lead to the next financial crisis.

This bill will destroy the only consumer protection agency in the United States Government by handing over the ability to defund the operation to the people who were committed to opposing its very creation.

It also repeals the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule that simply requires that financial advisers put the interests of its clients first rather than its own.

And finally, it is important to emphasize that the Financial CHOICE Act rolls back the accountability and reporting standards for credit rating agencies, as Gretchen Morgenson discussed in a New York Times ``Fair Game'' column on May 7.

Mr. Chairman, to sum up, this is an awful bill. This is a real stinker. I hope that my colleagues here vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding, and I join him in opposition to this bill.

While originally my remarks would have been much kinder to the bill, and I may have considered supporting it, I did not consider it favorably in committee. I know we had a voice vote on that. But in light of the unfortunate remarks that imply that there was illegal activity going on by Federal employees, and that is why we need this bill that is before us right now, I do have to agree with the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, that this bill is, indeed, a part of the vanguard of legislation to severely restrict and eliminate the use of official time.

Under the bipartisan Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, a Federal employees who serves as a union steward or union representative may be granted official time to perform activities that--and this is the important standard that is in the bill--the gentleman from Georgia indicated that we need this bill because there is no standard.

The standard in the Civil Service Reform Act requires a number of things: It requires both labor and management to agree on the use of official time, and that official time be ``reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest.''

That is the standard today, and every single Federal workplace-- management and labor--have to agree that the use of official time is reasonable, that it is necessary, and that it is in the public interest. That is a great standard, and that is what has been going on so far.

While there are those who seek to curb or repeal the statutory right and may claim that it amounts to misuse of government resources, let me offer you another concrete example of why official time is critical to the Federal workplace and serves the interests of the American people and taxpayer.

In the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Nation also endured a series of anthrax attacks perpetuated through the United States mail system against media offices in Florida, New York, and also Federal offices here in the Nation's Capital. The affected facilities included the Brentwood Mail Processing and Distribution Center here in D.C., that is now named after two dedicated postal employees, Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen, who lost their lives to anthrax exposure at that facility.

This is immediately after September 11. They were postal workers. They died of inhalation of anthrax poisoning because of the jobs they were doing on behalf of this country. The risk of further anthrax attacks threatened the safety of our postal workforce. I had two sisters with young children at the time working at the post office, and I knew of this well.

It jeopardized the safety of our postal workforce and customers, as well as the free flow of information and commerce that the constitutional responsibility of the United States Postal Service requires.

But rather than refusing to go to work in a dangerous workplace, by the use of official time, the management of the United States Postal Service, and the union representatives of the United States Postal Service sat down and worked out a measure where the union agreed to send their workers in, the mail kept running to every home and business in America, but the postal workers absorbed that danger on their own because they knew that steps were being taken to keep them and their families--because the threat was that anthrax would get on their clothes and they would bring that back to their own homes. We worked that out.

That agreement would not have been worked out but for the use of official time--and a lot of official time that was used in that crisis. That is the responsibility that those union representatives had to the workers. They have to guarantee a safe workplace for those workers, and that is why we should vote against this bill. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and we ought to vote this down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I have received countless visits, calls, letters and emails from constituents about this bill. I have heard from hospitals, doctors, patients, nurses, parents of children with serious illnesses, researchers and the list goes on. They have one thing in common: they are afraid of what TrumpCare could do to their patients and to their families.

H.R. 1628 will not bring down health care costs or improve access. Indeed, by slashing Medicaid by $880 billion, it will force States to ration care for our most vulnerable populations. In Massachusetts, this cut will put the health of 1.9 million people at risk, including 650,000 children, 170,000 seniors and 280,000 people with disabilities. My state is also being hit hard by the opiate addiction crisis and cutting Medicaid will cripple our ability to address that problem. It is also a disgrace that the funding being cut out of Medicaid is being handed over to insurance companies and the wealthiest Americans in a $1 trillion tax break for the rich.

TrumpCare slashes $175 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund, cutting its solvency by three years and hurts seniors by letting insurance companies charge older Americans five times more than they do young ones. The yearlong bar on reimbursements to Planned Parenthood for non- abortion services means that women will have to go without health screenings, pre-natal care and well-woman visits. And according to the C.B.O., 24 million Americans will no longer have health insurance coverage.

All this begs the question, how does this bill provide better care for Americans?

But you do not have to take my word for it when I say that this bill will hurt Americans. Groups like the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Nurses Association, just to name a few, are urging Congress to stop TrumpCare. These are the men and women who are out there on the front lines everyday treating and healing our fellow Americans.

To make things worse, TrumpCare is being rushed to the floor with minimal deliberation. It was introduced less than three weeks ago and we have not held a single hearing or heard from a single expert witness on it. Now we are being asked to vote on it despite receiving the newest version of the manager's amendment late last night. This is not the regular order and transparency that the Republicans promised.

Mr. Speaker, this bill pushes the cost of health care onto those who can least afford it while providing massive tax cuts for the wealthy. I urge my fellow members to defeat this misguided bill and let us begin the serious work of making real improvements in the Affordable Care Act for all Americans.

It is wonderful to join Mr. Boyle and Mr. Veasey from Texas. I thank them for creating the Blue Collar Caucus. I think the time is perfect for the challenges that we face as a country, and I think also, as a Democrat, embracing some of our tradition. I think, in some cases, we have drifted from that.

I do want to talk about the blue-collar economy and what is happening to people who work in the building trades and work as truck drivers and nurses and people who are really the backbone of this country.

As Brendan mentioned, I was an ironworker for about 20 years. I know what it is when you are trying to work from paycheck to paycheck, strapping on a pair of work boots every single day.

I also want to focus tonight on one part of Mr. Trump's executive orders and policies that have really hurt people in our demographic: regular working people. I want to speak specifically about veterans.

As most people heard, President Trump, when he came into office, initiated what was called a Federal worker hiring freeze, stopping any workers from going to work for the Federal Government. I just want to remind people out there that about 30 percent of those workers are veterans. So 30 percent of the people who go to work for the Federal Government are veterans. By putting a freeze on Federal workers, you are blocking almost one-third of workers who are veterans who would be trying to go to work.

The Federal Government is expansive. That includes workers at the VA; it includes workers at the FAA; it includes workers at the Defense Department, the State Department; on and on and on. So this is really freezing out veterans from going to work.

I had a young veteran in my office the other day who had some skills in radiology. He learned that through his military service in the Navy, but also when he got out, with the GI bill, and trying to go to work at the VA. I had to explain to him that President Trump, when he came into office, put a hiring freeze on, and that we were going to have to try to figure out another way to put him to work.

Well, that case is playing out over 50 States, and thousands-- probably tens of thousands right now--of veterans are being denied the opportunity to go to work for the Federal Government. Many of them have skills that are necessary.

We have people retiring and leaving Federal employment on a daily basis. We have nurses that are retiring at the VA and folks that work for the EPA are leaving at the end of their working lives. They are retiring. Yet, we are blocking these veterans from filling those positions because of the President's hiring freeze.

Seeing that, I actually drafted a bill that I am happy to share. It is H.R. 1001. It will basically create an exception. It will keep the President's freeze in place, except for veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, veterans who have served in previous conflicts. Anyone who has put on this country's uniform as a veteran would be exempt from the hiring freeze so that we can do the right thing.

Each and every one of these young men and women--and there are a lot of women--I have been to Iraq 17 times now; Afghanistan, about 9 times; and I am amazed at the number of young women who serve our country in uniform.

I already have, including my colleagues here, 23 Democrats who have signed on. I would love to get some of my Republican friends on this bill. This should not be a partisan issue, trying to put veterans to work. I am sure we have got some good Democrats and Republicans out there that agree on this, and this should be a bipartisan issue. We can stop the--let's be hopeful it was unintended consequences of the hiring freeze. We can stop this by coming together. Sign onto H.R. 1001.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their advocacy on behalf of workers.

I notice today that the President's nominee for Labor Secretary, Mr. Puzder, who had a very bad record with workers, withdrew his nomination. He has withdrawn from consideration. I think it is because of the hard work that Mr. Veasey and Mr. Boyle have done in speaking out on behalf of American workers and pointing out the

bad decisions and the wage and garnishment issues that Mr. Puzder had. I just think that their advocacy helped enormously in having him withdraw that nomination.

I thank my colleagues again for the great work that they do on behalf of all American workers, and I appreciate their service to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 15th Anniversary of Beacon Hill Village in Boston. It's an anniversary with significance for the whole Nation and they are to be congratulated on reaching this special milestone.

Mr. Speaker, Beacon Hill Village was created by, and for, neighbors determined, as they aged, to continue to thrive and grow in the neighborhood they loved. There was no ready model. A core goal of Beacon Hill Village members was keeping independent. There isn't much choice about growing old, but there are choices about where and how to do so. A little help with the ordinary business of living is always welcome, yet Beacon Hill Village's philosophy was from the start all about choice: its members are quite capable of figuring out what they need and when.

But the revolution in aging our nation is experiencing also presented an extraordinary opportunity beyond better managing daily life. Most of our nation's elders will live many years after retirement: Their goals for those years are to be productive, engaged and open to new people, new experiences, and new ideas. Its members quickly and clearly understood how Beacon Hill Village could advance those goals.

Almost from the start, word of Beacon Hill Village's success serving its own members spread. More and more communities, from near and far, were soon flooding Beacon Hill Village with requests for help in creating villages of their own. In response, just a few years after it opened in 2002, Beacon Hill Village was the chief force behind the creation of the Village to Village Network, dedicated to helping communities everywhere design their own villages reflecting local needs and using local resources. Today that Network has more than 350 open and developing villages serving members numbering over 40,000. These villages are all across the nation, in 45 states and the District of Columbia, and in six countries abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced, that the best days of Beacon Hill Village, the Village to Village Network and the villages of the nation, are still ahead of them. Their message is simple, forceful and optimistic: aging should be to each individual's own design. No one, as they age, should be told where to go or how to live. Villages can help their members take responsibility for their own aging and make choices resulting in vibrant, purposeful lives lived on their own terms, in their own homes and communities. With this message the village movement is changing how elders experience aging and how our society perceives aging. Every American benefits from these changes.

On February 13th in Boston, Dr. Atul Gawande, whose celebrated 2014 book Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End continues to sustain a lively national conversation about living well and ending well in old age, will speak at a public forum to salute and conclude Beacon Hill Village's fifteenth-year celebrations. Being Mortal has generous things to say about how Beacon Hill Village and villages inspired by it provide a valuable model for such living and ending well. Dr. Gawande's remarks will be simulcast nationally to more than 150 villages where more than 5000 will participate remotely in the celebration.

One of the great issues worldwide today is how to support and care for aging populations. By 2030, twenty percent of our nation's population will be over 65, an estimated 83 million people. The numbers are even larger in many countries around the world. The Village concept and Dr. Gawande's profound understanding of the importance of community and choice offer valuable insights and solutions for this challenging phenomenon.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the positive impact that the village movement has had on the experience of aging, I ask that my colleagues join me in saluting Beacon Hill Village and villages throughout the nation by designating Monday, February 13, 2017 as National Villages Day.

Mr. Speaker, almost 14 years after the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the American public does not yet have all of the information available regarding the circumstances surrounding those attacks on our country, particularly 28 pages of the bipartisan Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001, which remain classified.

Since 2013, my colleagues, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina, Congressman Massie of Kentucky, and I have been working together to craft and to garner support for H. Res. 14, which calls on the President to release the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry. I sincerely appreciate Congressman Jones' and Congressman Massie's willingness to collaborate on this concerted effort on this issue.

Over the past few weeks, calls to declassify the 28 pages have been in the spotlight due to recent allegations by convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, who conspired to kill American citizens and who will rightly spend the rest of his life in prison. Whatever the motivations for Mr. Moussaoui's recent accusation of complicity by foreign agents in the 9/11 attacks, his testimony does bring to light important questions. Most notably is the fact that, as a nation, we have not yet fully accounted for the sources of funding and logistical support that enabled al Qaeda to undertake those terrorist attacks.

We owe it to the families who lost loved ones on that tragic day to provide a complete accounting of the events and circumstances leading up to the tragedy of 9/11, and it is a grave injustice that 28 pages of the bipartisan, bicameral congressional inquiry remain classified 14 years after September 11. This was not a mere redaction of a few specific words or phrases but the wholesale excising and removal of a full section, 28 pages in length. It may have been a matter of national security to classify these pages back in 2002, but it is now a matter of public interest and good governance to release them in 2015.

I am in firm agreement with former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who oversaw the inquiry, with my colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina, with Mr. Massie, and with Members of both parties, who, like myself, have read the 28 pages and believe the disclosure will not jeopardize sources or methods used in gathering this information. I firmly believe that declassifying the findings is appropriate for a number of reasons.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper

functioning of a republic, and self-government is not

possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to

enable them to exercise oversight.

In other words, there can be no accountability without transparency. We must advocate for the need to make these pages public in order to shine a brighter light on the information contained therein and utilize it in framing our foreign policy going forward.

In addition, I have met with the spouses, children, siblings, parents of the 9/11 victims as well as with representatives from the 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism. They have provided powerful testimony and heartrending submissions regarding how important it is to seek the truth and to bring all those to account who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Today, at a time when the world continues to face challenges from expanding terrorist organizations such as

ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Boko Haram, and al Shabaab, as well as al Qaeda and its affiliates, we must be mindful of the urgent need to bring their financiers and supporters to justice as well.

At an even more basic level, our commitment to one another as citizens in a society that values freedom and justice demands that we hold accountable those who aided and abetted the savage attacks on our homeland and murdered thousands of innocent Americans.

When that fundamental duty to protect American citizens has been breached, it is not enough to say that we will ``never forget.'' The military and civilian personnel at the Pentagon, the first responders and office workers in the New York office towers, the passengers and crew of those hijacked planes, and all those families whose hearts still ache, we owe it to them.

So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to not only take the time to review those 28 pages but also consider supporting House Resolution 14, as these families and the American people deserve to have their questions answered.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 50.

With all due respect to my friend from Utah--and I do respect him; I know he didn't write this bill--there is a common practice here in Congress that you name the bill in a way that describes the opposite of what it will actually do. This is supposed to be an accountability bill, but this bill ought to be named the ``Government Gridlock Act'' because that is what it will introduce.

While I certainly respect everyone's opinion and position against Big Government--I certainly understand that. You can be against intrusive government. I understand that. But you can't be against a functioning government, and that is what this bill accomplishes.

This bill, as the gentleman did point out, does allow individual taxpayers to sue. Mrs. Gilhooly and Mr. Gilhooly can sue, but so can Exxon and so can JPMorgan Chase attack regulations under this bill. This bill makes the financial ability to sustain a legal challenge as the litmus test on how much justice you get under this bill.

Even though Congress has the ability to pass laws and to direct regulators to come up with regulations, large, well-financed banks and industries like the oil industry will be able to undo the direction of Congress by proffering legal challenges with enormous resources to stop those laws from coming into effect.

A good example is the financial services industry, where we under Dodd-Frank have directed that there be 300 separate rules developed to deal with the problems created by the crisis in 2008. That crisis cost $20 trillion to the American economy. Yet, under this law, in order to prevent big banks from taking those reckless gambles, we would have to force the regulators to show that the reduction in cost to the American taxpayer justified the regulation against Wall Street.

It misses the point. We are trying to bifurcate the risks created by Wall Street from the taxpayers' requirement to bail them out. This bill ignores that reality. I think we should all oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her great work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 37, the so-called Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act.

I served on the Financial Services Committee during the 2008 financial crisis, and I had an opportunity to witness the harmful impact that lack of regulation had on hardworking families around our Nation at a total cost of more than $22 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. My constituents--and many of yours-- lost their homes, their jobs, and their retirement savings during that period. Many pension funds today continue to suffer and are on the brink of collapse because of the reckless policies that were observed during that time by many of our major banks.

While I voted against the bailout of the Wall Street banks who were rewarded with bonuses as a result of the bailout, I did have the honor of helping to assist in reforming our financial system through the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I regret the bill under consideration today rolls back many of those reforms that my colleagues and I fought so hard to adopt.

I would note that after being defeated last week under a suspension process that offered no opportunity for amendments, this bill now has inexplicably been brought to the House floor under a closed rule that again does not include any of the 14 amendments that were filed with the Rules Committee. At a minimum, a bill that does so much harm to our financial system necessitates the normal committee process and additional time for debate.

H.R. 37 contains 11 separate bills, a few of them which I support, others I strongly oppose. Portions of H.R. 37 have entirely new provisions that the members of the committee and of this Congress have not had the opportunity to thoroughly analyze.

By the way, if you desire a good review of this legislation, in this past Sunday's New York Times there is an article written by Gretchen Morgenson that I think is extremely well-written and goes into great detail beyond the time that I am allocated here tonight.

Title II of this bill would allow banks with commercial business to trade derivatives privately rather than on clearinghouses. This would increase risk and reduce transparency for these transactions. My amendment, which was not accepted, would have improved the provisions by prohibiting systematically important financial institutions, whose collapse would pose a serious risk to our financial system, from claiming the exemption under this title.

Title VIII of this bill includes new language that has not been considered by the Financial Services Committee under regular order. If passed, title VIII would give banks an additional 2 years to comply with the provisions of the Volcker rule that mandates that banks divest collateralized loan obligations--packages of risky debt.

I thank the gentlewoman.

This 2-year extension is in addition to the extension we already provided by the regulation last year. That further delay adds unnecessary risk to our financial system. And that is why I sponsored another amendment to remove this additional 2-year delay, so banks will be required to comply with this provision of the Volcker rule no later than July 21, 2017.

Again, title XI of this bill modifies the SEC rule 701 by allowing private companies to compensate their employees up to $10 million in company securities without having to provide those employees with certain basic financial disclosures about the company stock.

I strongly support employees receiving equity benefits from their firms in which they work, but those benefits should be tangible and real. We all remember Enron and WorldCom where employees were pressured to buy stock as part of their compensation, and at the end of the day, that stock was completely worthless.

Why can't we enable employees to receive some equity in the company in which they work and ensure that those workers get accurate financial disclosure as part of that deal? This is why I offered three amendments to reform title XI in order to make certain workers get accurate information about the equities shares that they are receiving from the companies they work for. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee chose to deny all the amendments to this bill.

In closing, this harmful bill uses the veneer of job creation to provide special treatment for well-connected corporations and financial institutions while doing very little for the workers that it professes to help.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and, again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

[From NYTimes.com, Jan. 10, 2015]

Kicking Dodd-Frank in the Teeth

(By Gretchen Morgenson)

The 114th Congress has been at work for less than a week,

but a goal for many of its members is already evident: a

further rollback of regulations put in place to keep markets

and Main Street safe from reckless Wall Street practices.

The attack began with a bill that narrowly failed in a

fast-track vote on Wednesday in the House of Representatives.

It is scheduled to come up again in the House this week.

The bill, introduced by Representative Michael Fitzpatrick,

a Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the House

Financial Services Committee, has three troublesome elements.

First, it would let large banks hold on to certain risky

securities until 2019, two years longer than currently

allowed. It would also prevent the Securities and Exchange

Commission from regulating private equity firms that conduct

some securities transactions. And, finally, the bill would

make derivatives trading less transparent, allowing unseen

risks to build up in the system.

Of course, you wouldn't know any of this from the name of

the bill: the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small

Business Burdens Act. Or from the mild claim that the bill

was intended only ``to make technical corrections'' to the

Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010.

Here's the game plan for lawmakers eager to relax the

nation's already accommodating

financial regulations: First, seize on complex and esoteric

financial activities that few understand. Then, make

supposedly minor tweaks to their governing regulations that

actually wind up gutting them.

``We're going to see repeated attempts to go in with

seemingly technical changes that intimidate regulators and

keep them from putting teeth in regulations,'' predicted

Marcus Stanley, policy director at Americans for Financial

Reform, a nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 200

consumer and civic groups across the country. ``If we return

to the precrisis business as usual, where it's routine for

people to accommodate Wall Street on these technical changes,

they're just going to unravel the postcrisis regulation piece

by piece. Then, we'll be right back where we started.''

The bill was put forward on the second day of the new

Congress, in an expedited process, which didn't allow for

debate among members. This process is supposed to be reserved

for noncontroversial bills and requires support from a two-

thirds majority to prevail. It fell just short of achieving

that level, with a vote of 276 to 146, overwhelmingly backed

by Republicans and opposed by most Democrats.

A central element of the bill chipped away at part of the

Volcker Rule, the regulation intended to reduce speculative

trading activities among federally insured banks. The bill

would give the institutions holding collateralized loan

obligations--bundles of debt--two additional years to sell

those stakes.

The sales were required under the Volcker Rule, which bars

banks from ownership in or relationships with hedge funds or

private equity firms, many of which issue and oversee these

instruments. Like the mortgage pools that wreaked such havoc

with United States banks in the most recent crisis, C.L.O.s

can pose high risks for banks.

The creation of such securities has been torrid recently;

$124.1 billion was issued last year, compared with $82.61

billion in 2013, according to S&P Capital IQ. Among the banks

with the largest C.L.O. exposures are JPMorgan Chase and

Wells Fargo; according to SNL Financial, a research firm,

JPMorgan Chase held $30 billion and Wells Fargo $22.5 billion

in the third quarter of 2014, the most recent figures

available. The next-largest stake--$4.7 billion--was held by

the State Street Corporation.

Given the size of these positions, it's not surprising the

institutions want more time to jettison them. But the new

legislation represents Wall Street's second reprieve on these

instruments. After banks objected to the sale of their

holdings last spring, the Federal Reserve gave them two years

beyond the initial 2015 deadline to get rid of them.

Now they want another two years.

Although the top three banks had unrealized gains in their

C.L.O. holdings in the third quarter, SNL said some banks

were facing losses. And that was before the collapse in the

price of oil, which has undoubtedly pummeled some of these

securities.

A second deregulatory aspect in the Fitzpatrick bill

relates to the lucrative private equity industry, which

remains loosely regulated. The bill would exempt some private

equity firms from registering as brokerage firms with the

S.E.C. Under securities law, such registration is required of

firms that receive fees for investment banking activities,

like providing merger advice or selling debt securities.

Private equity firms are typically registered only as

investment advisers, so submitting to broker-dealer

regulation would result in more frequent examinations and

more rules.

These firms don't like that. But their investors could

benefit from closer regulatory scrutiny of costly conflicts

of interest in these operations. For example, a private

equity firm providing merger advice to a company its

investors own in a fund portfolio--not an arm's-length

transaction--could easily charge more for those services than

an unaffiliated firm would.

Finally, the bill's changes in derivatives would reduce

transparency and increase risks in this arena by allowing

Wall Street firms with commercial businesses like oil and gas

or other commodities operations--to trade derivatives

privately and not on clearinghouses.

Trading on clearinghouses generates accurate price data

that help both banks and regulators value these instruments.

Because these clearinghouses perform risk management,

problematic positions are easier to spot.

If this change goes through, it will be the second recent

victory on derivatives for big banks. Last month, Congress

reversed a part of the Dodd-Frank law barring derivatives

from being traded in federally insured units of banks.

Taxpayers may be on the hook for bailouts, therefore, if

losses occur in the banks' derivatives books.

The Dodd-Frank law, as written back in 2010, was by no

means a comprehensive fix for a risky banking system. And it

is more vulnerable to attack, in part, because of its

complexity and design. Dodd-Frank delegated so much rule-

making to regulators that it essentially invited the

institutions they oversee to fight them every inch of the

way.

And when Congress backs the industry in these battles, it's

no contest.

Still, it is remarkable to watch the same financial

institutions that almost wrecked our nation's economy work to

heighten risks in the system.

``The truth about Dodd-Frank is it's pretty moderate and

pretty compromised already,'' Mr. Stanley of Americans for

Financial Reform said. ``Any further compromise and it tends

to collapse into nothingness.''

Which is exactly what Wall Street seems to be hoping for.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to just amplify some of the concerns raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) in his remarks about the fact that here we are, just the second day of this Congress, and we have a group of 11 bills that have been rolled up. There are many new provisions here that have never seen a hearing, unfortunately. This is not the open process that we had hoped for and had spoken about just yesterday.

We have had very limited opportunity to review some of these new sections. Again, they have not had a hearing. They have not gone through regular order.

H.R. 37 contains 11 separate bills, some of which I support, but some of which I oppose strongly. Portions of H.R. 37 have entirely new provisions that most Members have not had the opportunity to thoroughly analyze.

For example, title XI of this bill modifies SEC rule 701 on stock- sharing. It allows private companies to compensate their employees up to $10 million in company stock without having to provide the employees with certain basic financial disclosures about the company. I voted against a similar bill, H.R. 4571, in the last Congress when it was marked up.

But I also want to point out, that while I strongly support employees receiving equity benefits from the firms in which they work, those benefits should be tangible and real. We all remember Enron and WorldCom, where the company, as compensation to those employees, actually pressured them into buying company stock and did not provide full information to them. And eventually, those shares were worthless. So you had thousands of workers being partly compensated in company stock, and the stock was worth zero.

Now we are going to expand this opportunity from $5 million to $10 million a year that each company will be able to pay their employees with company stock, and they don't have any obligation because part of this bill does not require them to make any type of a disclosure, Mr. Speaker. And there is no opportunity for those employees to get accurate financial information about whether the stock that they are being paid with is worth anything. It is just a bad road to go down.

In closing, this bill uses the veneer of job creation to provide special treatment for the well-connected corporations, mergers and acquisition advisers, and financial institutions while doing very little to address the needs of those workers.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.