Bill Huizenga

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to thank Steve Begnoche for his service to the city of Ludington, Mason County, and the Second Congressional District in Michigan. Last Thursday, Steve hung up his hat as the managing editor of the Ludington Daily News. For the past 29 years, Steve served the Ludington community with the type of journalistic integrity that all residents should expect from their newspapers. As a newsman, Steve challenged the status quo while giving all sides a fair shake. Steve also played a vital role as a journalist on the national stage by reporting how economically important the S. S. Badger, the last of the Great Lakes ferries, was not only for Ludington, but also for the entire State of Michigan, the Great Lakes, and even Wisconsin. Frankly, they don't make them like Steve anymore. Steve, thank you for your countless hours of hard work to ensure residents of northwest Michigan had accurate and reliable reporting. I hope you will be able to enjoy spending time with your grandchildren while still providing a thoughtful column for the Ludington Daily News now and again. Thanks, my friend.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes on February 9, 2016 through February 12, 2016, February 23, 2016, and February 24, 2016 due to the death of my father. Had I been present for roll call vote number 64, passage of H.R. 3036--The National 9/11 Memorial at the World Trade Center Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 65, ordering the previous question for H. Res. 609, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 66, H. Res. 609, the combined rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3293--The Scientific Research in the National Interest Act and H.R. 3442--The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 67, passage of H.R. 4470--The Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 68, the E.B. Johnson Amendment to H.R. 3293--The Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 69, the motion to recommit H.R. 3293--The Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 70, passage of H.R. 3293--The Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 71, the Kelly Amendment to H.R. 3442--The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 72, the Duffy Amendment to H.R. 3442--The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 73, the Grijalva Amendment to H.R. 3442--The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 74, the Takano Amendment to H.R. 3442--The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 75, the motion to recommit H.R. 3442--The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 76, passage of H.R. 3442--The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 77, ordering the previous question for H. Res. 611, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 78, H. Res. 609, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2017--The Commonsense Nutrition Disclosure Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 79, the McMorris Rodgers Amendment to H.R. 2017--The Commonsense Nutrition Disclosure Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 80, the Schrader Amendment to H.R. 2017--The Commonsense Nutrition Disclosure Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 81, passage of H.R. 2017--The Commonsense Nutrition Disclosure Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 82, to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 757--The North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 83, passage of H.R. 4408--The National Strategy to Combat Terrorist Travel Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 84, passage of H.R. 4402--The Foreign Fighter Review Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 85, ordering the previous question for H. Res. 618, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 86, H. Res. 618, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3624--The Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes on Thursday, February 4, 2016 due to an important family matter. Had I been present for roll call vote number 62, the Democrat Motion to Recommit H.R. 766, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 63, H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from California. We have worked well on a number of these issues. I would point out, though, that maybe not you, but some others are trying to act like this is the monumental thing whereas mergers and acquisitions are going to fail or flounder whether your amendment is passed. While it may be of some interest and I think it has some things that are either benign or not terribly objectionable, we do know--and I think we probably would both jointly agree--that oftentimes our problem isn't between us. It is between trying to get this body and the Senate to agree. If we can have one less thing to have a disagreement with them on as we are advancing this, I am all for it. I will specifically say subsection (C) on page 1, as you are talking about, my amendment adds what you have in there and more bad actor disqualifications. Actually, your amendment would roll that back. I don't think that was your intention, but that is what it would do. In subsection (D), our amendment adds the same disqualification, but is shorter and simpler to understand, which is also important as we are dealing with the Senate. In subsection (E), there is no apparent reason to prevent private business sellers and buyers from getting a transaction fee from a bank that is affiliated with an M&A broker. There shouldn't be some sort of exclusion on that. In subsection (F), it is highly, highly unusual that an M&A broker would work for both the seller and the buyer in the same transaction. So I think this is maybe a section in search of a problem. Subsection (G), adding this prohibition is frankly redundant, in our view, and could cause some more confusion. In subsection (H), the reasonable belief element sort of does the same thing. I am not sure what we are trying to get at other than maybe causing some more confusion. It is not, again, an intention of that but is what it would do. Subsection (I) is simply restating the existing law. So I think, as we are going through this, we are not wildly out of disagreement. I just believe that the amendment that was offered and passed earlier, which puts us in line, again, with the efforts of the Senate, is a better way to go. Again, to my friend from California, this is not you that I will direct this at, but others on your side of the aisle who are pointing to the no-action letter as the reason why we don't have to do this legislation. Yet, now we are saying we have to pass your amendment because it is only a no-action letter and we need this into the law. So we can't have it both ways.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, it has been estimated that approximately $10 trillion--with a T, 12 zeros--worth of small, privately owned, and family-operated businesses will be sold or closed in the coming years as baby boomers retire. Mergers and acquisitions brokers, or M&A brokers as they are often called, will play a critical role in facilitating the transfer of ownership of these small, privately held companies. If you were here earlier today, you would have heard me issue a red herring alert. This is exhibit A, what we are dealing with right now, as to what that red herring alert is and as you are hearing from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is exhibit A, what I used to use as an example of Washington working. Last Congress, I had this exact bill, and it passed this body unanimously. Let me repeat that--unanimously. There were zero votes against it. It went on as a suspension bill. It went on suspension because it was noncontroversial. It was agreed that this was the right direction to go. Unfortunately, I now have to use this bill and my portion--this amendment that we are dealing with--as an example of how D.C. is broken, and we wonder why the American people are cynical. Let's get to the heart of the matter. Why do we need to do this? Why do we need to address this particular issue regarding these M&A brokers? Today, Federal securities regulations require an M&A broker to be registered and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA, just like Wall Street investment bankers who buy and sell publicly traded companies. So let's just get this point clear. These are not folks on Wall Street. These are folks in Holland, Michigan, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in California, in Texas, in Florida, and anywhere else that one is selling a small, family-owned business. That is right. Anyone who is dealing with a sale or who is brokering the sale of a business anywhere in America is forced to register with the Federal Government and be regulated as a securities broker-dealer regardless of the size of the business or the sale transaction. This red tape is, of course, in addition to the State laws that already regulate those transfers. How did we get here? This bill corrects an unintended consequence of a 1985 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a lower court that created the sale of business doctrine. Prior to that decision, private company sales were exempted from Federal regulation. Since 1985, the SEC has issued many nonaction--or no action--letters that, under various but differing factual circumstances, have granted relief for M&A brokers. However, the other side is not willing to actually put it into law. Let's be clear. Title III of H.R. 1675 does not do away and does not change in any way, affect, or limit the SEC's jurisdiction or powers to investigate and enforce Federal securities laws. Rather, it simply exempts M&A brokers from SEC registration as broker-dealers, which makes the transfer of these small, family-owned businesses affordable. In fact, what do you do when you own a small family business? I own one. If I am able to save money on one side, I am able to invest it into my employees, and I am able to invest it into the equipment that is in my business. Federal securities regulation is primarily designed to protect passive investors in public security markets. Passive investors are people like you and me who might just buy a share in a company somewhere. Privately negotiated M&A transactions are vastly different and benefit little from SEC and FINRA registration and regulation but are burdened by the same regulatory requirements, obligations, and associated costs. M&A brokers, themselves, are small businesses. Title III of H.R. 1675 includes my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 686, the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act, which would create a simplified system for brokers facilitating the transfer of ownership of small, privately held companies. Yes, it was a bipartisan bill that passed our committee. My amendment would further clarify two things: First, any broker or associated person who is subject to suspension or revocation of registration is disqualified from the exemption. In other words, if you are a bad actor, you are exempted. You are not allowed to take part in this; Second is the inapplicability of the exemption to any M&A transaction where one party or more is a shell company. We heard that being brought up as a reason we shouldn't be doing this. Again, we offer an exemption. If there is a shell company, that is not allowed to be used. By including these additional investor protections--let me repeat, ``additional''--this amendment strikes an appropriate balance between the legitimate interests of all stakeholders and maintains strong protections for investors and small businesses. Today, Mr. Chairman, I just hope that we will see some common sense, that we will not chase after the red herrings that are being thrown out there, and that we will support H.R. 1675. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to alert the American people: we have a red herring alert. This is a legislative equivalent to an Amber Alert because we have folks who talk a good game behind closed doors, who come out here, though, in the light of day and do something very different, and they are missing. They are missing in action from solving the problem. This red herring alert is very disturbing. We instead are seeing today trumped-up attacks on commonsense reforms that need to happen that many people will behind closed doors agree need to happen. In my particular case with section 3, we have a ``no-action'' letter put out by the SEC that those on the other side of the aisle say, ``We don't need to do anything. The SEC is taking care of it.'' The problem is that it took years for the SEC to even address the issue. Apparently what is good enough for a ``no-action'' letter should be good enough for the law. So they know full well that many of the things that we are trying to address in H.R. 1675 are coming from unintended consequences. This important piece of legislation is a package of bipartisan ideas designed to help Main Street businesses promote job creation and economic growth. The Second District of Michigan, west Michigan, is full of these types of family-owned companies. Mr. Chairman, small businesses, private companies, and entrepreneurs need access to capital, but burdensome, needless regulations out of Washington and the SEC have created barriers to that investment capital. Main Street small businesses are the heart and soul of our Nation. In fact, they have created the majority of the Nation's new jobs over the last couple of decades. So what does that mean? It is not the big, major companies that are creating those job opportunities. It is our small, innovative companies that are. For these small businesses to survive and thrive in a healthy, growing economy, we must reduce barriers to capital and encourage small business growth and the small business entrepreneur without putting the taxpayer or the economy at risk. H.R. 1675 does exactly that. This compilation of bipartisan regulatory relief provisions will ensure that Main Street businesses continue to have access to the capital that they need to grow the economy and create new jobs. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1675. You need to ignore the red herrings that are getting thrown out there. The capital markets need to have these reforms. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to see H.R. 1675 make its way to President Obama's desk for his signature.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Honorable Gary Doer, the outgoing Canadian Ambassador to the United States. Canada is one of our Nation's longest and greatest allies. Our bilateral trade with Canada was nearly $734 billion last year alone, and it supports over 9 million jobs. In fact, my home State of Michigan sells more goods to Canada than our next 12 largest trading partners combined. Over the last 7 years, Ambassador Doer has built a long list of accomplishments, including improved U.S.-Canadian regulatory cooperation, advocating for the Congressional Gold Medal for the Devil's Brigade, and the repeal of burdensome country of origin labeling requirements. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for Ambassador Doer's personal friendship to me and his relentless service to Canada and his friendship with the United States. I wish him well in his future endeavors. As chair of the U.S.-Canada Interparliamentary Group, I look forward to working with Canada's incoming Ambassador, David MacNaughton, to further build on our Nation's great partnership.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes on Tuesday, February 2, 2016. Had I been present for roll call vote number 50, the Palazzo Amendment to H.R. 3700, I would have vote ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 51, the Green Amendment to H.R. 3700, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes on Monday, February 1, 2016. Had I been present for roll call vote number 46, H.R. 2187, the Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 47, H.R. 4168, the Small Business Capital Formation Enhancement Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we made history. For the first time, Congress put a bill on a President's desk to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that puts its financial interests ahead of women and children. More than that, Congress is investing in women's health by redirecting this funding to organizations that don't take innocent lives. In Michigan, there are 20 federally qualified health clinics for every single Planned Parenthood location. Let's eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and invest those dollars in federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics. This will ensure that women receive high quality medical care while protecting the life of the unborn. West Michigan and the Second District of Michigan are home to passionate and dedicated pro-life organizations in Grand Rapids, Holland, and the Tri-Cities area, and Muskegon, Newaygo, and Mason Counties. Later this month, hundreds of thousands of Americans, including many from west Michigan, will be marching in their hometowns, as well as in Washington, D.C., as they honor the sanctity of life. I look forward to joining them.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank my friend from Indiana for doing so. It has been a pleasure working with him on this and many other issues. I have to tell you, my heart breaks for those families who have been impacted by violent crimes. These tragedies, however, do not give President Obama the authority to circumvent the Constitution. Just yesterday, the President announced unilateral actions to undermine the Second Amendment without input from Congress, making good on his vow from an October 2015 speech of his willingness to politicize tragedies to advance his gun control agenda. The President needs to enforce the laws currently on the books. Criminals who abuse firearms or obtain them illegally should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and that isn't always the case currently. I wish President Obama understood what a majority of Americans already know, and especially those of us who have purchased weapons and purchased guns. Those who abuse firearms or obtain them illegally should be prosecuted. However, purchasing a legal gun is not quick or easy. They also know limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens will not solve this problem. Instead of pursuing his political agenda, the President should join the bipartisan effort to fix our Nation's broken mental health system. I am a proud cosponsor of Representative Tim Murphy's Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act. This legislation would overhaul our Nation's inadequate and outdated mental health system so people who need treatment can receive it. Simply throwing more money at this issue without these reforms is like giving the VA more money without demanding better care for our veterans. According to ABC News, 63 percent of Americans see mass shootings as a reflection of problems identifying and treating people with mental illness and mental health problems rather than adding more restrictive gun laws. Also, according to The New York Times, not exactly a conservative newspaper, 77 percent of those asked said that they thought that better access to mental health treatment and screening would reduce gun violence. The American people are correct. These people who have been polled on this are absolutely correct. Responsible gun ownership is not the problem. The House must remain vigilant to protect the American people from an ever-encroaching Obama administration that is more interested in creating a political issue than a solution. As a responsible gun owner myself, I am committed to being an advocate for Second Amendment rights, the constitutional legislation that will actually help prevent gun violence across America, and those who have been impacted by its violence.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3189, a wonderful bill called the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act, the FORM Act. Mr. Chairman, Marriner Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve under President Franklin Roosevelt, once began testimony to Congress by stating: ``I am speaking for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, an agency of Congress.'' Chairman Eccles recognized what many seem to have forgotten over the Federal Reserve's 100-plus-year history, that the Fed was created by Congress; the Board of Governors are all appointed for terms of 14 years by the President and confirmed by Congress; and it operates per its charter and laws set out by, yes, Congress. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is actually or, theoretically, is supposed to be accountable to Congress. Today, the Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful institutions in the world. It is past time to restore transparency at the Fed and hold it accountable to the American taxpayers. The U.S. Federal Reserve System, or the Fed, as it is known, was created in 1913 in response to a series of economic crises early in the 20th century. Although the Fed was created as an independent agency deriving its power from Congress, over the past 100 years, the Fed's power has significantly expanded. While originally created to provide stability to the banking business, the Federal Reserve has gained unprecedented power, influence, and control over the financial system while remaining shrouded in mystery to the American people. At the same time, the American people have continued to suffer through a financial crisis, at least once per generation. With such a poor record, the Fed should not be free to carry on without accountability to the institution that created it. Mr. Chairman, we will not fully realize robust economic growth until the Fed changes the conduct of its monetary policy. Six years have passed since the recession officially ended, but the U.S. economic opportunity remains well short of its potential. The Fed must be accountable to the people's Representatives as well as to the hardworking taxpayers themselves. We need to modernize the Federal Reserve, restore accountability, and bring it into the 21st century. That is why I introduced H.R. 3189, the FORM Act of 2015. The FORM Act makes two fundamental changes to improve how the Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy. Now, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to kind of like to pass bills before they know what is in those bills. That is one of the ways that they discover what is in those bills. But if they actually read this bill, they would see that it protects the Fed's ability to develop what it believes is the best course of action on monetary policy--the exact opposite of what my colleague was saying. It requires them to then give the American people a greater accounting of its actions. My bill directs the Federal Reserve to transparently communicate its monetary policy decisions to the American taxpayers--not what it must do, as is being asserted. Rather, they must simply explain what they are doing and why they are doing it. By requiring the Fed to regularly communicate how its policy choices compare to a benchmark guideline instead of continuing the ad hoc strategy currently being employed, the FORM Act will help consumers and investors make better decisions in both the present and create more sound expectations about the future. Even Chair Yellen once championed the merits of this approach, stating that ``the framework of a Taylor-type rule could help the Federal Reserve communicate to the public the rationale behind policy moves.'' The FORM Act does not dictate any particular monetary policy course; it simply ensures that the Fed transparently communicates its monetary policy decisions. I can't agree more with Chair Yellen. Second, the FORM Act reforms the Federal Reserve's emergency lending powers under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, closing a glaring loophole and preventing the likelihood of future bailouts, as we have seen in the past. During the last financial crisis, the Fed used extraordinarily broad powers to provide trillions of dollars in low-cost loans to a handful of massive financial institutions. The FORM Act raises the bar from the current trigger, permitting the Fed to invoke its emergency lending powers only upon finding that--and this is from the text of the bill--``unusual and exigent circumstances exist that pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.'' Responsibly limiting the Federal Reserve's lending authority has support from across the ideological spectrum, ranging from conservatives to liberals, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren. The FORM Act also does the following: It requires the Fed to conduct cost-benefit analysis for all regulations it promulgates. Failure to conduct cost-benefit analysis results in excessive regulatory burdens on small banks and businesses, which harm the economy and I believe have slowed our recovery. It also requires transparency about the Federal Reserve's bank stress tests as well as the international financial regulatory negotiations conducted by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that we are sliding into a much broader area of regulation that is not U.S. regulation but is actually European and world regulation. It requires the Federal Reserve to review the salaries of highly paid employees. It provides for at least two staff positions to advise each member of the Board of Governors independent from the Chair, and it requires Fed employees to abide by the same ethical requirements as other Federal financial regulators. That sounds like an excellent idea in my mind. It clarifies the blackout period governing when Federal Reserve governors and employees may publicly speak to Congress as well as to the public on certain matters, and it ends automatic seats at the Federal Open Market Committee table, which provides a more balanced representation of votes on Federal policy at the FOMC. It requires the full FOMC to decide policy rates on excess balances maintained at a Federal Reserve Bank by a depository institution. It removes restrictions placed on the Government Accountability Office's ability to audit the Fed, and it directs the GAO to conduct an audit of the Fed within 12 months of enactment and report back to Congress. Finally, the FORM Act establishes a bipartisan monetary commission, as proposed by Chairman Brady, to identify other opportunities for improvement. Mr. Chairman, we can no longer afford to have an entity with so much power as the Federal Reserve by operating on a whim with ad hoc policy. The reforms in this legislation strike the right balance between holding the Fed accountable to Congress and the American people while still affording it its independence to make monetary policy decisions free from political pressure of all stripes. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Reserve System is an agency of Congress. As such, it is not infallible, and its independence should not be unlimited. Let's restore proper congressional supervision and provide the American people with transparency. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 3189, the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act of 2015.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I don't trust Congress enough for us to come up with the rule, which is why I wrote into the bill that the Fed develops the rule, the guideline, the benchmark that they put forward. We know they do this already. They look at the Taylor rule, they look at a number of other models, and they then go advance forward with the best policy that they think is the right thing. We are just asking them to communicate that to Congress and the American people.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate the chairman yielding to me on this. Exactly what you were talking about is the case. This is merely a benchmark guideline to measure against. In fact, in committee, when Chair Yellen was testifying in front of our committee, I suggested that, if they saw problems, that they would then put a floor or put a ceiling on any movement that could happen within that timeframe. I thought I gave a very helpful suggestion that we call it the Yellen rule at that point, and she can claim credit for doing exactly what is being discussed.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am taking this second opportunity to rise because I think we have heard a lot of misinformation out there, and there is a lot of fog that has been getting thrown up into the air. This is about transparency. This is about accountability. This is not about Congress' coming in and dictating to the Fed how to do business. They, the Fed, will set a benchmark that they will then be measured against. It is not we. It is not Congress saying what they will or will not do. It is they, themselves. That seems pretty reasonable. It also seems very reasonable to me that, if we are ever finding ourselves in a position in which there are these massive bank bailouts that some would claim need to be done again, we would have a belt and suspenders way to approach it in that we would say not just two or three or four people are going to decide whether that is going to happen, but that we would actually get the regional Fed Bank Governors involved in that as well. We would say that 9 of the 12 of them have to agree with the decisions that are being made. We make sure that there is a redundancy, that we are not just rushing and plunging headlong. Ultimately, the goal is to make sure that we never have that situation happen again so that we never find ourselves in that situation of having to even have the discussion about whether we would have massive bank bailouts, which is what happened in 2009 under this administration. Again, I appreciate the effort that has been put into this. There are a lot of small details to it, but there are a lot of broad themes to it. At the end of the day, we know that this is the best thing not only for Congress, not only for the Fed, but, ultimately, for the American people as they are demanding us to hold an organization accountable that we in Congress created not in an unreasonable fashion, but in a way that is balanced, transparent, and that ultimately helps the stability of the U.S. economy.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I want you to imagine with me. Imagine a single mom moving out of a trailer. She has had some tragedy in life. She has got two kids that are watching very, very closely, though, what she is doing and how she is handling it. Imagine, as a former realtor, the joy that I took in being able to get her into her own home, the first thing that she had felt like was truly hers and something that her kids could be proud of. Well, that is the type of scenario that we are trying to promote, I would think, as a country. Unfortunately, with the rules that have been promulgated under this qualified mortgage rule, lenders determine a borrower's ability to repay using, really, an arbitrary standard set by a formula. They don't look at the character. They don't look at the background. They don't look at the history of that person because it is outside the formula. If a lender does not adhere to this bureaucratically established formula, a borrower can actually sue the lender. This has caused 73 percent of community bankers, those who know their customers best, to cut back their mortgage business or simply stop providing mortgages altogether. That is the worst-case scenario. The Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act removes bureaucrats from the equation and allows lenders to work directly with borrowers to provide them with loans that they can afford. That is a key element here: loans that they can afford. How do we know that they are going to do this? Well, by keeping the loan on their own portfolio, on their own books, the lender assumes the full risk of the loan. Let me repeat that. The lender retains the full risk of those loans. If they didn't think that that borrower could pay back the loan, they would not lend it to them. Now, in my mind, that is the definition of what a qualified mortgage test really ought to be. So this bill is going to allow those mortgage lenders to extend and cover those loans and really offer those services to those people who are looking for that. I have heard on the other side of the aisle a claim, as the White House did in its veto threat, that this bill would ``open the door to risky lending by undermining consumer protections under the rule and expanding the amount of loans that would be exempt from it.'' As was pointed out by my friend from Kentucky, portfolio loans had nothing to do with the financial crisis that we went through. In addition, loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which make up the vast majority of the market, are already exempt under the QM rule. So who exactly are we protecting? Who exactly are we maybe not servicing the way that this Congress ought to be servicing and ought to be advocating for? The originate-to-distribute model incentivized predatory and subprime lending, and, because those loans would be readily securitized, moved off of their books, they no longer had any responsibility. All they had to do was meet kind of a blush of a requirement, and they could move it right on off of their books. I can tell you this: as a former realtor, I understand that nobody has a greater incentive to ensure that a borrower can repay their loan. I just pray that my colleagues on both sides will support this bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, folks that are watching this at this late hour are unfortunately seeing politics over policy. The ranking member wants to agree but just can't let herself. This policy that we have seen, 73 percent of the Democrats on her committee signed a letter saying we need to hit the pause button; we need to make sure that we understand what this policy that got shipped over to us from the Senate is going to mean. Unfortunately, it has been plunged ahead, and we are moving ahead with this. This is less than ideal policy that we are looking at, but our choice isn't good choice versus bad choice. Our choice is less than ideal versus very bad choice. What we are seeing here is that we need to examine this further. It hasn't been looked at in over 50 years from the Committee on Financial Services. So I hope two things: one, that we are going to have a change in the way the House operates. I believe that that new day has arrived and that we will be doing that, but we are not sure exactly what this fixed rate is going to be. I will point out, though, that with that 6 percent return, the Fed has been able to build up a $29 billion, with a B, surplus account, which is where we are today. Chairman Hensarling of the Committee on Financial Services had written the GAO requesting a study of that. I put out this letter, a bipartisan letter where we had 150 colleagues, that was forwarded. What we are doing is a better offset. We are believing that this is a better way to go rather than raiding Fannie and Freddie and the g-fees and the budget.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding a missed vote on Tuesday, November 3, 2015. Had I been present for roll call vote number 585, H. Res. 354, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the safety and security of Jewish communities in Europe, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that my chairman has done. I chair the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, the subcommittee that has jurisdiction directly over this. In the last conference when I was vice chair of that committee, we started a work group looking at various reforms that could happen, and that continued on into this term. We had a number of us on all sides of the issue that were working together. The real problem arose, though, when those of us who felt that we needed to move in a direction where we were transferring that liability from the taxpayer back to businesses--when we felt that we were proposing some of those reforms, those who were most benefiting from the program said: Absolutely not. Not a direction we can go. Cannot be a phaseout. Cannot be a sunset. Cannot be a change to make these recourse loans. Cannot make them only loans as opposed to grants. In other words, it was business as usual. It might be a good business decision to transfer business liability and risk to somebody else, but it is a bad idea to transfer that additional liability to the U.S. taxpayer. I think that we have a couple of issues in front of us, Mr. Speaker, as was talked about yesterday. First is the issue of the Ex-Im Bank and the entitlement mentality that has grown up, and that is just a symptom of it. As the chairman has said, if we cannot take care of and tackle this entitlement mentality within the business community, how in the world are we going to have the moral standing to tackle that same entitlement mentality on the social side of our spending? So it is sad to believe, in my mind, that some people think that this is the only or the best program that we can put forward for the U.S. to remain competitive on the world stage. We know that we have put ourselves at a disadvantage through the regulatory environment that has been created not only under this administration, but under previous administrations as well. We know that the tax regime that we have is also a huge problem. I just ask that my colleagues oppose this effort to make sure that it is status quo in Washington, D.C.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come back up here to talk again a little bit about this process. We were starting to talk about what had happened through the committee. There is a work group that was put together both in the last Congress and in this Congress that came up with some, I think, very interesting things: reforms. Included in the reforms was: How do we extract ourselves out of this? You see, here is what happened the last time. The last time the Bank was reauthorized, it was through a short- circuited system much like we are experiencing today. It did not go through regular order. It did not have all of the backing that it needed. It was kind of jammed down on everybody on the House floor. To let that smooth over a little bit, there was a requirement that the U.S. Treasury start a negotiation with the Europeans about one specific product: the wide-body aircraft. That is what maintains a vast majority of the business of the Export-Import Bank. But here is the thing: The U.S. Treasury ignored that directive. They ignored the law as they were compelled to go in and start talking about: How do we unwind ourselves internationally from this mess that has been created? Then, I think, there is a logical question to ask, Mr. Speaker: If they are willing to ignore that part of the law, what part of the law that we are trying to reform now are they willing to ignore? My guess is all of it because, as I was talking about and as we were floating these ideas of various reforms of making these recourse loans, of making sure that--oh, I don't know--a bank examiner could come in and actually allow this ``Bank'' to pass any banking standards as their portfolio weighting is way off, they could never pass any kind of exam that any traditional bank would have to go through. Every time any of those kinds of commonsense reforms were proposed, the word came back from down on high--from those big companies that utilize this bank--and they said, ``No way. No way are we going to allow this to happen.'' So, truly, the characterization of this being regular order is way out of line, in my opinion.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the leadership of my chair on this issue. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, we have two issues that we are dealing with today: First is the issue, itself, of the Export-Import Bank and the entitlement mentality that has grown up here in the United States. It is sad to me that some believe that this is the only, or the best, way for the U.S. to compete on the world stage when, in fact, we know it is not. We are at a competitive disadvantage, not because we may or may not have an Export-Import Bank, but because of our regulatory environment, because of our tax environment, and because of all of the other barriers that have been thrown up by this Congress, including health care and a number of other things that have made our companies less competitive. The other issue is the way that we are dealing with this issue as it is coming to the floor and how it has reached the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know which committee chair of another committee would approve of having the process be short-circuited out of their committee. Would it be the Energy and Commerce Committee? the Ways and Means Committee? Because I can tell you I have not been real happy, as a small business owner on some of the lack of progress that we have made on that. Maybe it would be the Ag Committee. Why did it take so long for things to reach the floor? How about any other committee that we are all dealing with? The simple fact is that my subcommittee, Monetary Policy and Trade, where this jurisdiction lies, had three joint hearings with the Oversight Committee on this particular issue. There was a sunset that was put in. It was intentionally put in so that there would be a review. The review happened, and the determination of my subcommittee and this committee was that it did not warrant further action. So, again, as we are looking at this tool that has been infrequently used, it doesn't restore regular order, as has been claimed. No. In fact, it upends the balance of power in the House. It skirts the committee process and gives the minority the control over the House floor. A discharge petition was brought to the House floor under the guise of job creation. In reality, it serves to revive and retrench a dependency mentality.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3192. Madam Speaker, just to reinforce what my colleague from California was just talking about, this is a period here where we are going to be moving forward to make sure what the CFPB is doing with its 1,888- page--sorry, that is me straining trying to pick all that up--rule is moving forward. I would ask what is more pro-consumer: moving forward with a clarified rule that grants certainty to those businesses and those individuals like Realtors--I am a former Realtor, and mortgage folks like myself, I used to be in the business--or not doing the deal and not doing the closing. Because that is what is going to happen. That is what is going to happen is you are going to see these companies say: Wait a minute. We are not sure what our legal exposure is here. Mr. Cordray, the head of the CFPB, has said that he will give a certain grace and understanding and, I believe the word was ``sensitivity'' to this moving forward. That is not a grace period. That is not clarity. Anybody who has a lawyer advising them or a CPA or anybody else who has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that their client understands what is happening in the intent would not say that that is going to stand up in court. I also know as a former Realtor that the home-buying process, buying or selling, can be one of the most challenging, confusing, and stressful times, especially for a first-time home buyer. The three most stressful points in life are marriage, death, and changing where you live. That is a very difficult time. As we are moving forward on this, there often has to be this domino effect of homes closing to then get that closing settled, to then move beyond to the next deal, and you will have two, three, four, five, sometimes five or six homes all lined up, five or six families waiting for this one closing to happen. What that is going to do is just cause more confusion. Madam Speaker, I support the intent and the spirit of the rule because I have sat at that closing table having to go through form after form after form. Everybody gets writer's cramp signing their name on all of these different forms. This was a good thing about Dodd- Frank, and combining these various forms and these various legal documents that have to be signed makes total sense.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the intent and the spirit of the rule makes a lot of sense. Having something that is going to negatively impact those home buyers, especially those first-time home buyers, is not pro-consumer. It is not pro-growth. What we are trying to do with this particular bill--and I applaud my new colleague for this--is to allow the stakeholders, which is the buyer, the seller, and the companies that have the legal responsibility to do this closing properly to move forward and make sure that this is done in the proper way for those consumers.