Bill Huizenga

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Chair, virtually every Federal agency, including the IRS and the Social Security Administration, have moved to electronic delivery. Why? Because older Americans have rapidly adopted internet technology in recent years, including 96 percent of those between the ages of 50 and 65, of which I am, and over three-quarters of those over the age of 65. In fact, in a recent AARP study about retirement plan account holders' views on electronic versus paper accounts, 91 percent of the people were comfortable using the internet to log in and view financial accounts and 94 percent used the internet daily. I understand the AARP has some concerns with this legislation. We have attempted to address those through the ranking member. Unfortunately, their solution so radically changes the scope of the bill that it undercuts the entire intent of this. As I have said before, if you want paper, you will receive paper. If you want an electronic copy, you will receive an electronic copy. It is disingenuous to say anything else. If you don't have internet access, or if you choose to receive paper, you will get it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Chair, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Nickel).

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chair, for 90 years, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been tasked with three things: protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and finally, facilitate capital formation. The amendment before us today does all three. First, it directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate rules with respect to electronic delivery of some required disclosures to retail investors. Second, it provides a transition period, allowing an initial paper communication about the electronic delivery to be sent to existing investors. Third, during a period not to exceed 2 years, the amendment requires delivery of the annual notice in paper solely to remind investors of the ability to opt out of that and into electronic delivery at any time. Lastly--and I can't emphasize this enough--this amendment provides a mechanism for investors at any time to opt out of e-delivery, and once again, you will receive paper versions of the documents. You want paper, Mr. Chair, you get it. You want e-delivery, you can get that, too. E-delivery is not a new and radical concept, but frankly, it is long overdue, and the data supports the facts. In 2018, the Social Security Administration eliminated paper as its primary method of delivering benefit statements to individuals. Now, nearly 45 million Americans who receive benefits from Social Security have created online accounts to access their information--information that is more timely and more secure. Likewise, the Federal Thrift Savings Plan, TSP, which Members and staff in this Chamber use, began offering statements digitally in 2003, with 5.5 million or 85 percent of participants currently taking advantage of this option. Finally, in 2020, the Department of Labor moved to e-delivery as a default for all of its workplace plan participants. I would close by addressing consumer protection. This amendment appropriately preserves the ability for investors who prefer to receive paper notices and disclosures to do just that. Like many of my colleagues, I, too, represent a district that encompasses rural communities. That is why it was important for today's amendment to ensure that paper will always be an option if internet access is an issue. American financial markets are some of the most sophisticated in the world with innovation happening at every turn. Yet, for retail investors, we have decided that defaulting to an outdated mode of information sharing is in their best interest. Today's amendment was guided by a commitment to honor consumer choice while ensuring Americans receive important information. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall no. 10. Stated against:

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate the heroic actions of Gerold Prather. On May 15, 2022, Mr. Prather of Kalamazoo, Michigan, rescued a teenage boy who was struggling to swim in Lake Michigan. That day, the teenage boy and his friends were at least 100 feet out in the lake when they started to call for help. The friends were struggling and had submerged under the water. In another group at the beach, Mr. Prather heard calls for help, entered the lake, and swam to the boys. Reaching them, the boys submerged and resurfaced. With difficulty, Mr. Prather first pushed a boy toward the beach and then positioned him on his back and towed him to a point about 50 feet from shore where, tiring, Mr. Prather shouted for help. Another man waded into the lake and helped Mr. Prather and the boy get to the beach. In honor of these lifesaving actions, Mr. Prather has been awarded the Carnegie Medal, a prestigious honor bestowed upon those who ``enter extreme danger while saving or attempting to save the lives of others.'' Mr. Prather is one of 16 total Carnegie Medal recipients slated to receive the honor in 2023. Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Mr. Prather for his heroism and commemorating him for his lifesaving actions.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 722, On Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, this is sort of a continuation of my friend Mr. Hill's amendment and Mr. Barr's, and other amendments that we have talked about today, which is really about whether we are going to allow the largest state funder of terrorism to continue to have access to hard dollars and continue to have access to the capital that is funding groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Mr. Chair, the deadly terror attacks of October 7 made one thing abundantly clear: The United States cannot continue to allow the Iranian regime access to funding that, in turn, could be used against our allies and even American citizens. I am pleased to offer this amendment today, and I hope it will receive bipartisan support because a very similar amendment, Mr. Chair, received a voice vote in 2016 right along these lines. Last month's barbaric attack against our friends and allies in Israel was a powerful reminder of the dangers posed by Hamas and others. By the way, Hamas, receives 93 percent of their total funding from Tehran. As we mentioned, Tehran and Iran, being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, must be cut off from their ability to wage hostilities abroad. As far-reaching as our Iranian sanctions are, it may surprise some of my colleagues that we have not actually closed all the financing loopholes. The administration still enjoys significant discretion to permit trade and financial services with these bad actors even if it has nothing to do with humanitarian purposes. My amendment would change this. Under Executive Order No. 13902, the Trump administration made the construction, mining, manufacturing, and textile sectors of the Iranian economy subject to U.S. sanctions, in addition to sanctions in place, many going back to the 2012 NDAA. The Treasury Department later added the financial sector to this group, blacklisting 18 Iranian banks in October 2020. At the same time, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control, also known as OFAC, retains broad discretion to license transactions with sanctioned Iranians. Under the Obama administration's nuclear deal, for example, Treasury licensed aircraft sales to Iran Air, which had previously been sanctioned for providing support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, also known as the IRGC, and to the Defense Ministry. An amendment to the FSGG appropriations bill to prohibit these licenses was adopted by the House in 2016 by voice vote. We must not let licenses undermine sanctions under these executive orders, which is why my amendment would prohibit them if they allow Iran to use the U.S. financial system. It is that simple. The attack on Israel has underscored how we cannot become complacent when it comes to blocking Iran from the goods, technology, and hard currency it needs to fund terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and many others. In addition to being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran has been designated by Treasury as a jurisdiction of primary laundering concern. Mr. Hill just referenced in his amendment that Treasury does have the ability to put these jurisdictions on money laundering, but they have rescinded that, Mr. Chair. They allow these exemptions. That is why Mr. Hill's amendment, my amendment, and other amendments are trying to narrow that down and tighten that down. Clearly, we should shield our financial institutions from contact with the country to the fullest extent possible. Now, let me address potential objections. Some might ask about humanitarian aid under this measure. My amendment does nothing--let me repeat, nothing--to affect existing exemptions for agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices. These exemptions have long been codified into our laws, and this amendment does not change that. This is explicit in the text of the amendment. Mr. Chair, you may have heard and seen those media reports about phantom false billing that might be happening or black market deals where those goods and services are delivered and being misused and even sold on the black market for that cash. That is another issue, and we need to address that, but that is not what we are getting at here in this one. Others might ask whether this amendment could limit Treasury's ability to license transactions as future ransom for hostages, for example, or even as part of a new nuclear deal.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 530, on Agreeing to the Amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Westerman

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Van Raalte Farmhouse. The Van Raalte Farmhouse has been a staple of our West Michigan community for generations, and we thank the City of Holland for preserving not only this site but the legacy of the Van Raalte family. The farmland was purchased by the founder of Holland, Reverend Albertus Van Raalte, in 1847. The Reverend split the land between two of his children, Albertus and Benjamin, as a gift for their valiant service during the Civil War. Benjamin, a soldier in the Union Army who served in Michigan's 25th Infantry, purchased his brother's half of the land and constructed a beautiful neoclassical farmhouse on the property in the early 1870s. Benjamin cultivated the land for the remainder of his life, producing peaches and peony flowers. The farm became known as ``The Maples'' due to the large sugar maples grown on the property. The farm stayed in the family for multiple generations until it was sold in the 1980s to the city of Holland, Michigan. Holland helped transform the farmhouse and its land into a beautiful park. In 1989, Van Raalte Farmhouse was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Today, community members continue to enjoy hikes and picnics as well as cross-country skiing and sledding in the winter at the park. Mr. Speaker, please join me in commemorating 150 years of history at the Van Raalte Farmhouse as the Van Raalte family's story and the farmhouse's beauty continue to inspire the people of Michigan's Fourth District.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The short-term stop-gap government funding measure we are debating here today not only keeps our government open, which is very important, it responsibly reduces spending, makes critical reforms to secure the border, and, importantly, contains the text of my bipartisan bill to establish a fiscal debt commission. The Fiscal Commission Act of 2023 now included in this bill will create a commission that proposes recommendations to finally tackle our Nation's unsustainable debt trajectory in the medium and the long term. Furthermore, both Chambers of Congress will be required, Madam Chair, to take a vote on the commission's proposal. With this key provision, Congress can no longer kick the can down the road on the rapidly growing threat of our national debt. Given the bipartisan support of this legislation upon introduction, it is clear that both Republicans and Democrats understand that time is running out. The Federal Government is already spending more on interest on the national debt than it spends on children--something that my colleagues I know are very concerned about because they talk about it. The interest is already nearly more than what we spend on defense, and we are rapidly approaching a point where interest on the debt will be more than Social Security and Medicare. In building the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023, we learned from past commission mistakes and gave this legislation real teeth, practicality, urgency, and clear goals for Congress to come face-to-face with this massive challenge. Specifically, the commission is made up of 16 commissioners that include 12 Members of Congress, as well as 4 private-sector experts that are selected by leaders of both the House and the Senate. The commission is tasked with identifying policies to improve our fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve a sustainable debt- to-GDP ratio in the long term. Importantly, it will put forward solutions to ensure the solvency of our 20-plus trust funds for decades to come. The commission will also propose recommendations designed to balance the budget at the earliest reasonable date, including at minimum stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio at or below 100 percent within 10 years--all while addressing growth of direct spending and the gap between revenues and expenditures. The proposal will then come to Congress in the days shortly after the 2024 election where the House and Senate must take an up-or-down vote on the recommendations without amendment and without delay. I am proud to say that joining me in the introduction of the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023 there were an even number of Republicans and Democrats. With this inclusion in the continuing resolution before us today, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep our government open this week and secure our Nation's fiscal future for generations to come.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I missed Boebert Amendment No. 50. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 481.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I wish the gentleman hadn't necessarily yielded back his time because I would have loved to have a little bit of a colloquy on this. I fully understand the USCIS is a fee-based institution. It takes in those fees. In addition to the $600 per petition fee, they also had proposed a tripling of a fee for the named employee. If you are putting in--and the gentleman knows this issue very well. If you have a particular person that you are requesting to come into the country, this administration tripled that fee. If you have an unnamed person for an H-2A or an H-2B, they doubled that fee increase. I had an amendment that was going to attempt to address those two issues, as well. The Rules Committee ruled that nongermane. We can have that discussion outside of that, but they did rule this particular proposal and this amendment as germane, as relevant to this discussion. While we have seen a fee already that is in place be increased, we are not able to do that, but this is a brand-new fee that the administration, again, has labeled the ``asylum program fee.'' We all know that there are serious issues at the southern border, and it is something the gentleman has talked about pretty extensively. I just don't see how penalizing small businesses and people who are using the system legally and increasing their costs which are going to be passed along to the general public, how that makes sense in this case. I talked to a farmer back in southwest Michigan who regularly employs about 100 seasonal temporary workers. It doesn't take a math genius to figure out 100 H-2A visas with a $600 fee, that is $60,000 in additional fees that this farmer is going to have to put up front before they have done the harvest, before they have actually reaped any of the benefit of the work. That is why I believe this is so crucially important to U.S. agriculture. While I understand the gentleman may oppose this particular amendment as it is sitting, I hope he wouldn't oppose the spirit of this. I would love to work with him on this because I do believe we need to address this issue. Mr. Chair, I again urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I believe it is a commonsense amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to protect farmers, the agricultural business, and small businesses throughout west Michigan, and, frankly, across America from a costly new fee. Along with a host of additional fee increases for H-2A and H-2B visas, the Biden administration has proposed a brand-new $600 per- petition fee, Mr. Chair, on employers seeking visas for temporary workers. This impacts a wide range of guest worker categories, such as H-2A and H-2B. H-2As, of course, are used for temporary agricultural work, and H-2Bs are usually used in the tourism industry. Frankly, I know my friend from Texas has been very involved in the H-2B and H-2A space. We have had this discussion before. Furthermore, the administration--not me, not Republicans--but the Biden administration itself is dubbing this increase the ``asylum program fee.'' This $600 fee will be coming directly out of the pockets of farmers and small businesses and funneled to the asylum process backlog caused by this administration's failed border policies. In April of this year, six Republicans and six Democrats from Michigan--nearly our entire delegation--joined together to oppose this increase in a bipartisan letter to Secretary Mayorkas requesting that he reconsider reimplementing this fee and other significant fee increases that we view as harmful. Making ends meet in the face of soaring prices and record inflation is hard enough. The Federal Government should not be inventing additional costs that raise prices for consumers and make it harder for family farms and small businesses to keep their doors open. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate both Allan and Kim Overhiser for their incredible service to Allegan County and on their induction to the prestigious Michigan Farmers Hall of Fame. It is an honor to express my gratitude for their dedication and commitment to our community and Southwest Michigan. Mr. Allan Overhiser was raised on the Overhiser farm and decided to follow in his family's fruit growing tradition. When his father retired, Allan and Kim Overhiser took over the business and became the fifth generation of family farmers. Under their combined leadership, the farm has expanded to 325 acres and includes more than 30,000 fruit trees. Allan and Kim have brought on their son, Alex, to continue managing the family's farming operations. Coinciding with his agricultural and business leadership, Allan has also diligently served his community. Allan spent 16 years as the Casco Township Clerk from 1988 to 2004 and has continued his service as the Township Supervisor since he was first elected in 2004. On Allan's watch, his constituents have directly benefitted from the development of a 20-acre park overlooking Lake Michigan, the creation of the South Haven Area Water and Sewer Authority, and the establishment of the South Haven Area Emergency Services Authority. He is a recipient of the Michigan Horticultural Society Distinguished Service Award. In addition to helping run their family farm, Kim Overhiser has also distinguished herself as a community leader. She is a founding member of the Michigan Agritourism Association, a board member for the Lakeshore Harvest Country Association, a Cub Scout leader, and as a strong supporter of Fennville High School Athletics and Bands. Kim's passion for service has helped make Southwest Michigan an even better place to live, work, and raise a family. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for joining me to congratulate Allan and Kim Overhiser on their well-deserved Hall of Fame induction and for their years of dedicated service to Allegan County and Michigan's 4th Congressional District.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon).

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. It is currently my time. I guess my question to the gentleman is--this is very short--it says--literally it is a sentence-- ``in paragraph 4(b) by inserting `the Department of Defense and the National Guard' before `or'''--I don't see anything in there in my amendment that will bias the Secretary of Transportation to only utilize fields that have a DOD or National Guard presence. In fact, the opposite could be argued, that those fields, because they have a DOD or a National Guard presence, would somehow be excluded from the gentleman's pilot program. So, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to him very briefly if he cares to answer what his opposition is. He doesn't care to address that, which indicates to me that he is either unsure or doesn't know or that I might be right in that. Anyway, I still do believe that if we are having a pilot program then it ought to be open to more of our fields and not fewer of those fields. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I, again, appeal to my colleagues. I believe this is a commonsense amendment to a pilot program. I can assure the gentleman that, yes, if my amendment is adopted on this then I will also be voting against an amendment that would end the underlying pilot program. I think he will have many others of us doing the exact same thing. So the gentleman can help himself, Mr. Chair, if he would be willing to accept my amendment, but that is up to those in opposition. Mr. Chair, I appeal for approval of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.