Bill Huizenga

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the Montague Wildcats on their incredible D-6 football state title at Ford Field in Detroit, MI. This team has shown a great level of resilience and skill throughout this past year. Notably, the Wildcats put together a perfect season despite the challenges brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, boasting a 12-0 record, and winning their third state title in school history. I would like to congratulate each player and coach of the Montague Wildcats who played an integral role in capturing the state title: Players: Izac Jarka, Michael Moore, Zachery Nelson, Drew Collins, Rodney Brassfield, Andrew Kooi, Ian Degen, Colton Blanksrom, Try Mikkelsen, Chase Gowell, Tugg Nichols, Dylan Everett, Sam Smith, Reece Taylor, Owen Petersen, Nick Moss, Kade Johnson, Alec Waruszewski, Joel Booth, Walker Martin, Aaron Rolf, Dakota Croff-Wiegand, Silas Jancek, David Dobson, John Greiner, Chris Kessler, Hayden McDonald, and Luke Booth. Coaches: Pat Collins, Brock Myers, Cody Kater, Craig Smith, Denny Barnes, Dan French, Brian Jaekel, Randy Mikkelsen, Brad Francis, Matt McDonald, Evan Eilers, and Jeff Stark. Team Support: Tim Stoudt, Eric Greiner, Ron Arnson, Jace Collins, and Kellen Francis. Administrative Support: Jeffrey Johnson, Troy Moran, and Jay Mulder. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Montague Wildcats on their Division 6, football state title and for being a Michigan symbol of resilience in the face of this ongoing pandemic.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for roll call vote number 236, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended on H. Res. 512 Calling for the global repeal of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy laws, I would have voted Yea. Had I been present for roll call vote number 237, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended on S. 46, HBCU PARTNERS Act, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, having this updated information will help us analyze and assess the threats facing the Great Lakes and allow us to be more proactive instead of 100 percent reactive. The Great Lakes are a way of life for many of us in west Michigan and throughout the Great Lakes system, and these pristine resources help define who we are as a community and a people. I will continue to work, support, and advocate for commonsense reforms like today's legislation that will protect these incredible natural resources for generations to come. I do want to thank my fellow colleagues who have been working on this, Mr. Kildee from Michigan, Mr. Joyce from Ohio, and the rest of the Great Lakes Task Force. This has been a great, true bipartisan success story, as we have looked at increasing funding for protecting the Great Lakes through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the GLRI, as well as initiatives like this.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of a divided Washington, D.C., it is important that Congress comes together to prioritize the protection of the Great Lakes. As co-chair of the bipartisan Great Lakes Task Force, building bipartisan consensus that preserves the Great Lakes, strengthens their economy, and protects them for future generations has been one of my top priorities. While the environmental sensitivity index maps may not be the headline-grabbing legislation that we are sometimes used to, these maps are critical to the communities across the Great Lakes. We must have accurate assessments of coastal resources that are at risk of severe damage from an emergency or a natural disaster. These environmental assessments include information on endangered and threatened species, vulnerable shorelines, and widely used community resources, such as beaches, parks, and boat ramps. The maps are vital to disaster planning, as well as recovery, research, and restoration efforts. It is essential that we have an accurate representation of vulnerable locations and areas in the Great Lakes that are in need of protection in the event of an emergency. While maps for the East Coast, the West Coast, and the Gulf Coast have all been updated recently, maps for the Great Lakes have not been updated in over 20 years. To be clear, while the Great Lakes holds over 20 percent of the world's fresh water, providing drinking water to more than 48 million people, it supports over 1.3 million jobs, and generates billions upon billions of dollars in economic activity. Yet, as I stated before, our region hasn't had a proper environmental map update in more than two decades. This legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would solve this problem by modernizing and updating our maps of the Great Lakes. Along Lake Michigan and throughout the Great Lakes shoreline, the current state of erosion and high water damage is at a crisis point. In my district, along the shores of Lake Michigan, the high water levels are threatening not only people's homes and public infrastructure but the overall ecology and the economy of the Great Lakes. Communities throughout the region have declared states of emergency as roads, bridges, harbors, and wastewater treatment facilities, just to name a few, are in danger due to these high water levels. As we continue to see disasters and emergencies in the Great Lakes region, government, at all levels, must be prepared and have up-to-date information to act upon. This bipartisan bill would accomplish that, while demonstrating another way my Michigan colleagues and I, and really all of us from the Great Lakes region, are making sure the Federal Government prioritizes and protects and preserves the Great Lakes. Whether it is responding to rapidly evolving events, such as a natural disaster, or planning long-term projects, such as habitat restoration, we need to have reliable and accurate information available to all the players. When it comes to protecting our lakes, habitats, and shorelines, these updated maps will allow us to better prepare to face natural disasters or emergencies.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a death in the family. Had I been present for rollcall vote number 225, On Agreeing to the Rep. Levin of Michigan Part B Amendment No. 9 for the National Apprenticeship Act of 2020, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 226, On Agreeing to the Rep. Smucker of Pennsylvania Part B Amendment No. 15 for the National Apprenticeship Act of 2020, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote No. 227, On Passage of the bill National Apprenticeship Act of 2020, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a death in the family. Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 222, On Closing Portions of the Conference for the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act, I would have voted ``Yea.'' Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 223, On Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8294) National Apprenticeship Act of 2020, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``Nay.'' Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 224, On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8294) National Apprenticeship Act of 2020, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a death in the family. Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 221, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4611, the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a death in the family. Had I been present for roll call vote number 219, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 327, the Wounded Veterans Recreation Act, I would have voted ``yay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 220, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 3147, the Improving Safety and Security for Veterans Act, I would have voted ``yay.''

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for roll call vote number 215, On Ordering the Previous Question for Providing for consideration of the resolution H. Res. 1153 condemning unwanted, unnecessary medical procedures on individuals without their full, informed consent, and providing for consideration of the resolution H. Res. 1154 condemning QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 217 H. Res. 1153 condemning unwanted, unnecessary medical procedures on individuals without their full, informed consent, I would have voted ``yay .'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 218 H. Res. 1154 condemning QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes, I would have voted ``yay.''

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Will the gentlewoman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. HUIZENGA. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it appropriate--

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6270. Republicans are unwavering in our support to hold China accountable for the human rights violations that are occurring in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or the XUAR. We agree with each other on the facts on the ground, from the oppression that the Uyghurs are feeling, to the forced labor camps. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that we passed H.R. 6210 last week, literally last week, on a bipartisan basis to address these human rights violations. Moreover, to date, the Trump administration has taken significant action to punish human rights violators in the region, including recent sanctions and additions to the Commerce Department's Entity List. On the other hand, this window-dressing bill, put forth by the Democrats less than a month before the election and a week after we actually passed legislation, will not hold any bad actors accountable. Adding additional mandatory disclosures for public companies is not the appropriate way to curtail human rights atrocities. Sanctioning is the most effective way to hold these human rights abusers accountable. The framework of this bill is deeply flawed. First, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, has no foreign policy expertise. The SEC's three-part mission is to: one, protect investors; two, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and third, facilitate capital formation here in the United States. The Treasury and State Department handle the sanctions regime. We should instead be working with both the State Department and Treasury to hold these bad actors accountable, not the Securities and Exchange Commission. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are working with the State Department and Treasury. To be clear, this bill would require the SEC to issue rules regarding American companies, and only American companies, to disclose whether they or any of their affiliates directly or indirectly engaged with an entity or an affiliate of an entity to import not only goods from the XUAR, but also goods containing materials originating or sourced from the XUAR. Now, we all have been talking about Disney a lot and a lot of other places that have had content from, seemingly, this area. So now let's look at what this would mean for a manufacturer. Let's look at what this would mean in so many various areas of our economy. This means that companies would be required to know if its affiliates, its suppliers, anyone they may have a relationship with, are ``indirectly engaged with affiliates of certain companies.'' So you may not be doing something directly, but an affiliate or a partner of yours may be doing something with an affiliate or a partner of somebody else that may be dealing and doing some business in that area. This is a poorly constructed disclosure regime where a public company would be required to disclose impossible-to-discern information, and it would be liable for securities fraud, a very powerful word, if it is impossible to discern information that is not disclosed correctly. So think about that. They may not know they are breaking the law, this law, but they would be held accountable for that. Further, the bill does not contain a sunset clause, and the disclosure requirement would apply indefinitely even if behavior in the region has changed. This bill's framework has proven disastrous. Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act mandated disclosures relating to the use of conflict minerals that originated in the DRC, or the Democratic Republic of Congo, or an adjoining country. There is an entire Great Lakes region, they call it, in Africa. The implementation of section 1502 cost billions of dollars--Democrat estimates put it at over $7 billion--and the provisions led to devastating job losses, not here in America, but in Africa. Mr. Speaker, this bill did not go through regular order either, I might add. Committee Republicans have not had the opportunity to make substantive changes or suggestions, let alone examine the bill's likely harmful consequences. So, again, just last week, the House passed H.R. 6210, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, to hold China accountable. That is where the responsibility lies, with China, not U.S. companies or the Securities and Exchange Commission. Today, we are only trying to give a vulnerable Member and other Democrats who feel the need to ``get tough on China all of a sudden'' a win--sad, in my opinion. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6270, as it will limit opportunities for everyday investors, reduce the number of public companies, increase compliance costs on businesses, and may harm, actually, the Uyghurs themselves who this bill is intending to protect. Let's go after China. Let's not go after the Uyghurs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume. Let me just address the point that was just brought up, Mr. Speaker. There is a sensitivity to that. There has been an injustice in our history, there is no doubt, and we need to address that now. Obviously, it was addressed at the time, but it has been ongoing. But whether it was the slave trafficking that the chairlady was talking about or whether it was family members of my wife who were enslaved by Nazis in work camps or whether they are modern-day slave labor camps like this with the Uyghurs, this must be stamped out. This must be stamped out. We are in robust agreement about the problem and about the issue. The question here is enforcement and responsibility. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a quote from the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We heard about moral obligation and those kinds of things. This is what the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission said: ``As we all know, the SEC has little or no experience in crafting trade sanctions or articulating and enforcing human rights policy, two areas which have not traditionally been within the purview of securities regulation.'' This is from Mary Jo White, Barack Obama's head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. So this is not a partisan issue. This is not a question of whether you support Uyghur slavery or not. I am offended if our colleagues are trying to portray it as that. I don't think they are, but that may be kind of how they are tinting it. And I might refer everybody to the fact that, last week, we passed a bipartisan bill addressing this very issue. But this is about enforcement. This is about the State Department doing its job. This is about the Treasury Department doing its job, and, yes, our Financial Services Committee, which has done its job with sanctions. We are very much a part of that sanction regime with the Department of the Treasury. So, please, Mr. Speaker, do not misunderstand, and please don't misconstrue opposition to this particular bill. Again, we have no disagreement about the atrocities. We have no disagreement about what is happening on the ground to the Uyghurs and, frankly, to others. By the way, if this was about others, we would include others, but it is narrowed down to the Uyghurs. So I am hoping and I am praying that this isn't just a political ploy to look tough on China, finally, but I hope this is really about helping people, because I know that is why I am here. So I want to make sure, whether it is a young lady in the Philippians who is in sex slavery or whether it is a Uyghur in a labor camp or whether it was my wife's family that was imprisoned by the Japanese in internment camps in Indonesia or in the Netherlands under the Nazis or whether it was our brothers and sisters who came here involuntarily as slaves, we have to recognize the evil and the sinfulness behind this, as my friend and colleague from Texas had talked about its being sinful. I wholeheartedly agree. The question is: How are we going to remediate that and address it? Unfortunately, the Securities and Exchange Commission is not the right vehicle for that. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, we are hoping to get one more person here who is on their way, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good, robust conversation, and we have agreed violently here on the problem and on the issue that we need to address. Again, we have no disagreement about the atrocities against the Uyghurs. We have no disagreement about what is happening on the ground and the despicableness of the CCP, the Chinese Government. Mr. Speaker, I really hope that it is not simply that the Democrats are wanting to appear ``tough on China'' by pushing through an empty window dressing bill that hurts U.S. investors and companies but, unfortunately, simply pays lip service to the Uyghurs with a framework that has already been proven disastrous. And I just read a short while ago the quote from Barack Obama's head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mary Jo White, who said that the Securities and Exchange Commission is not equipped for this. Using the SEC as social police didn't work with conflict minerals, and it won't work as we all attempt to protect the Uyghurs. I would remind my Democrat colleagues, again, that a year ago, Republicans put forth strong proposals to prohibit taxpayer-backed financing through the Export-Import Bank from going to the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese Government. Our proposals had real teeth in them. Sadly, the Democrats on our committee rejected this proposal with no real explanation. So instead, Democrats want to target our securities laws and make the SEC responsible for foreign policy. In fact, targeting our securities law is the Democrats' solution for virtually everything--climate change, outsourcing, conflict minerals, not enough mustard at the ballpark. It is not the job of the SEC to make sure that these things are happening. It is our job and Treasury's job and the State Department's job to make sure that those sanctions are in place. This bill does not target the problem. Instead, it simply puts, not just inconvenient duties on the plates of these publicly traded companies, no, it accuses them of fraud--fraud--over something that is impossible for them to determine. On top of it, it requires enforcement from an agency that simply cannot do it. Sanctioning bad actors is the appropriate and most effective way to punish human rights abusers, as sanctions hurt the Chinese Communist Party without hurting the Uyghurs or the American capital markets or other investors and employees around the world. And ironically, sanctions cover everyone. If you are a privately held company that is using materials from a source that is under sanctions, guess what? You just broke the law. You can't do that. Now under this, if we are only using the SEC, guess who the SEC applies to? Publicly traded companies only. So those private companies could still go along their merry way doing business with those folks. Yet, these publicly traded companies have this massive burden put on them, enforced by an agency that says it cannot enforce them. I would like to see everyone covered, not just these publicly traded companies. Mr. Speaker, both the House and the administration have taken meaningful action to combat human rights violators in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. This includes recent sanctions imposed by the administration on a number of China's 25-member ruling Politburo and party secretary of the region, as well as additions to the Commerce Department's Entity List. Mr. Speaker, that is why I request my colleagues oppose H.R. 6270, not because we don't agree on the goal, not that we don't want to make sure that the Uyghurs are protected, but because using an agency to enforce the law is the wrong direction to go. We are literally asking the street department to go be the police department. And whether you are doing the fire department or the street maintenance, or something else in the city government, you may be good at that but that doesn't mean you are a good police department or a good fire department. So let's not ask the SEC to do that job, the job of the State Department. Mr. Speaker, this is only going to be hurting those American investors, those American companies, everyday investors, who are trying to make sure that they get a reasonable return, yet, have a concern to protect the Uyghurs that, unfortunately, this bill fails to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I remind Mr. Bilirakis, everyone knows that Detroit is actually hockey town. Mr. Speaker, every day, members in law enforcement put on their uniform not knowing if they are going to come home, these mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters. In an era of heightened rhetoric, I stand here today to say thank you to our women and men in uniform. Recently, we have seen a rise in attacks against police officers across the country and even in west Michigan. This month, officers in Muskegon Heights responded to a domestic disturbance where two people were shot, one of them murdered. A police chase ensued when a deputy encountered the suspect driving the wrong way. When the deputy tried to apprehend the suspect while driving, he was fired upon. Multiple departments working together were able to use a police cruiser to disable the suspect's vehicle. Unbeknownst to the officers, there was also a developmentally disabled woman in the backseat who was rescued and brought to safety. This incredible story follows a weekend where 11 shootings took place in Grand Rapids. Despite all this, some of my colleagues still think that defunding the police is a good idea. I am here to tell you it is not. This will only hurt community policing initiatives for the very communities that need it the most. So, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to the incredible men and women who serve in west Michigan. We stand with you and appreciate your professionalism, your courage, and your dedication to our community.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to a family illness. Had I been present for roll call vote number 183, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass the Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 184, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass the CHARGE Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Ben Jones, a beloved high school football coach at Cranbrook Kingswood High School, who recently passed away at the age of 30 in a traffic accident. Ben went to Muskegon Catholic Central High School, where he played football, basketball, baseball and track. He led his football team to a state championship as a senior in 2008. While at Central Catholic, Ben found his favorite motto, ``Get To.'' Every day, Ben would tell his teammates how they `get to' play football today. Ben went on to play football at Hillsdale College. His teammates remember him as the hardest worker on the field, a great teammate and an even better friend. Not surprisingly, Ben was also a great football coach. His players knew him as not only someone who understood the game, but someone who knew how to lead and loved his players. The players know that Coach Jones cared about their lives at home, how they were doing in school, and how they were developing as men. ``Get To'' wasn't just a motto to Ben. It was how he lived his life. He attacked each day with enthusiasm, hope and excitement. The Muskegon Catholic Central, Hillsdale College, and Cranbrook communities have lost a dear friend and mentor. He will be greatly missed. My Prayers go out to Ben's parents, Theresa and Bruce Jones, his sister Alissa, his brother Nate, his extended family, his friends, and the countless others who will mourn for him. Madam Speaker, I join with those throughout Michigan in remembering the extraordinary life and legacy that Coach Jones has left behind.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Seymour Padnos of Holland, Michigan. The West Michigan community mourns the loss of Mr. Padnos and thanks him for his 60 years of serving our community as the CEO and then chairman of Padnos Iron and Metal Co. Mr. Padnos passed away at his longtime home in Holland, Ml and is remembered as a well-loved husband, father and grandfather who cared deeply about West Michigan and donated generously to institutions such as Grand Valley State University, Michigan Maritime Museum, Indian Trails Camps and others. His early efforts to transform West Michigan as a commercial shipping harbor has shown how the West Michigan spirit leads to community prosperity. Mr. Padnos's lifetime of service to our community is truly something to celebrate, and I will be praying for his family during this time of grief. He is survived by his wife of 72 years, Esther (Roth), and their four children Mitchell, Shelley, Bill, Cindy, and grandson Louis Padnos. Madam Speaker, is because of dedicated community members such as Mr. Padnos that I am especially proud to serve Michigan's 2nd Congressional District. I join with those in West Michigan in remembering the wonderful life and legacy that he has left behind.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for roll call vote number 167, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass the Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Act, I would have voted yea.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the House will vote on the provisions in this bill, and the Chair just laid that out. Every single one of these provisions was included in the so-called HEROES Act, a partisan attempt that we debated last month. Well, just like that $3 trillion grab bag, this bill will have no chance in the Senate. It will not be signed by the President. At the conclusion of this debate, we will be right back where we started. I say to my colleagues, why not try something new, try bipartisanship. It worked in the CARES Act and the other four COVID-19 response bills that we had, and I tell you it could work here, as well. But rather than work across the aisle, the Democratic leadership, gave us no advance warning this bill would be debated on the House floor, and rather than work across the aisle, my colleagues jammed through the bill the day the Rules Committee held a meeting on five other bills. Moreover, the Rules Committee reported out a closed rule on this bill. Now, let's explain that to America what a closed bill or closed rule means. There are three types of rules: An ``open'' rule, meaning you can add any amendment that you want. A ``structured'' rule, which says, you know what, we are going to narrow those amendments to those areas that we think are most pertinent to the bill. And then a ``closed'' rule, which says you get nothing. You don't have any say in trying to change this or improve this bill. It doesn't matter. We don't want to hear from the minority. We don't even want to hear from our own Members what ideas they might have. So, notwithstanding there have been numerous concerns raised about this bill, there will be no opportunity to amend it. There will be no opportunity to strengthen it or to improve what is already, in my opinion, a bad bill. This outcome will only stifle debate. This outcome will only hurt the bill's chances for any type of actual success. But clearly that is not the goal here. It is an attempt to find another wedge issue to divide us. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that Republicans and I are committed to working together to support efforts that are targeted and effective in responding to this devastating pandemic. When we work together there is nothing that can stand in our way. The CARES Act is proof of that, as well as all the other response bills that we had. As I mentioned earlier, Congress acted swiftly back in March to pass the CARES Act. The CARES Act provided robust financial support to individuals and small businesses impacted by COVID-19. The CARES Act also increased funding for HUD, Housing and Urban Development, and its assisted housing programs by approximately 25 percent over its appropriated budget. For renters, the CARES Act provided critical protections through a Federal moratorium on evictions for residents from Federally assisted properties. This moratorium, which lasts through the summer, is in addition to any State or locally enacted eviction moratoria. I know that in Michigan, in my home State, there has been that moratoria, as well. For homeowners, the CARES Act created a new forbearance option for Federally backed borrowers directly or indirectly impacted by COVID-19 financial hardship. What does ``forbearance'' mean? Forbearance means you don't have to pay that month; you can attach those payments at the end. You have a time out from having to go and pay your mortgage. Borrowers can automatically claim up to 1 year of payments protection penalty free. This historic relief has worked. In fact, it was negotiated out in a bipartisan manner. It has been stable and stabilized and has actually slightly declined nationwide forbearance rates as well as rent collections largely consistent with pre-COVID trends. This is proof that the CARES Act--a bipartisan bill that I think had four or maybe six total votes against it, some from both parties--works. This is proof that bipartisanship and consensus approach has been the right one in the past, and it ought to be the right one now. Of course, we should never accept good enough. As an answer it comes to providing housing and economic security for our Nation's most vulnerable families. However, the bill today that we are considering, like the bill that we considered last month, goes in the opposite direction. Instead of following the CARES Act model to focus on those hit hardest by the pandemic, this bill simply plays politics. This bill dusts off an old Democratic grab bag wish list of policy goals predating and unrelated to COVID-19 under the guise of relief, all of which are nonstarters in the Senate, let's be clear. If we really want to start a real conversation about affordable housing in this country, let's start with the facts. The fact is that far too many large, high-cost metropolitan areas' local decisions and regulations have made the cost of housing in those areas too high for many hardworking families. We should not be rewarding these high-cost cities for decades of self-made mistakes with more taxpayer dollars. We should be looking at ways to support families, not cities and municipalities and housing authorities, but families to meet those challenges that this pandemic has forced upon them. Republicans have and will continue to support targeted and efficient aid that goes to those who are most in need. We support solutions for those that have been impacted by the pandemic that are, one, administered efficiently. That is a key. For you as a taxpayer I would assume you would want to have that. Two, targeted to those who need it most. That is the safety net we are trying to provide. And, three, include much-needed oversight. This bill fails those tests. Let me give you one example of why this bill fails all parts of that test. Section 101 of the bill creates a new $100 billion--that is with a B--``emergency rental assistance'' grant program for individuals or families ``at risk of homelessness,'' a policy both sides certainly do and can support. But the bill takes the policy to the next level, making funding available to individuals making up to 120 percent not of the poverty level but of their area median income. So, what does that mean? That means that an individual living in San Francisco making $131,000 would qualify for a homelessness grant. Now, I am just a simple guy from the Midwest in Michigan, but making $131,000 a year qualifies you for a homelessness grant? Oh, by the way, what does that get you? $6,012 per month in rental assistance. $6,000 a month in rental assistance. This is not help; it is scandalous. And I don't understand how any of my colleagues could defend that. Well, additionally, this bill spends more than $119 billion--again, with a B--in new funding for HUD programs, new funding, yet the bill fails to include a single meaningful permanent reform to any of the HUD programs. Moreover, the bill fails to provide any oversight for that new funding. To that end, figuring out how HUD will spend a 240 percent increase in its budget is a critical element to ensuring that any new funding is helping real families who are in need, who are struggling and not getting just lost in some bureaucratic shuffle in Washington, D.C., or at some metropolis's housing authority. In fact, Chairwoman Waters said it best when talking about the CARES Act: ``Since taxpayers are footing the bill, all Americans deserve to examine any and all information related to the administration, disbursement, and utilization of these funds.'' Boy, I wish I had the ability to put in an amendment to do just that, but we don't have that opportunity today. So, I agree. I agree with her on that, and we need to have that transparency. That is why Republicans stand ready to work together to find consensus on meaningful reforms and ways to help those households deal with the challenges of this awful pandemic. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to take a look at this. We know it is a recycled partisan bill. We know that it is not going to go anywhere in the Senate. We know that it is not going to be signed into law. Let's have a real conversation about the issues, not just pick another political football. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.