Bill Huizenga

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time on that; that would be my understanding of that. And a concern that I had of not having ``coercion'' is the word that I would use, that private entities could be coerced into using a particular declared rate. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to have this conversation. This shouldn't be a surprise. We knew this day was coming since 2014. The Alternative Reference Rate Committee, the ARRC, has worked diligently to help ensure a successful transition from the aforementioned LIBOR rate system to a new system. In fact, over the last several years, Republicans on the Financial Services Committee have raised this issue on numerous occasions with our prudential regulators, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury under even the last administration. I, myself, have asked for a greater focus on this issue, but unfortunately, this request seemingly fell on some deaf ears. It was unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side seemed to sort of forge ahead without having a broader conversation. There was one hearing on this issue before we marked up this bill in July. We needed to do a better job in socializing this particular issue because now, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. We have Members of this Chamber who do not understand the issue and don't understand the process, and they look at this as being just rushed. They don't see the 2\1/2\, 3, 4, 5 years of having this discussion since the London Whale scandal happened where there was a manipulation of those international interest rates. Here we are today, once again, because of a truncated process, and it appears to some of our Members that we are rushing through a bill that is going to expand the Federal Government, that could cost the Federal Government something, that is going to interfere with private contracts. We simply have not done the work to normalize and socialize this particular issue. This has been described as a once-in-a-generation event, and we are talking about financial instruments with hundreds of trillions of dollars at stake, including effects that we can't even totally foresee. Fast-forward more than 2\1/2\ years, here we are less than a month from the deadline, and we are just now voting on a bill to address these legacy contracts for the transition from LIBOR. This is Washington and, frankly, the process at its worst. So how did we get here? Every day, thousands of financial contracts attach LIBOR as the interest rate. With LIBOR phasing out, the financial system needs legal certainty on what happens to those legacy contracts that have this rate already baked in. This bill attempts to provide a solution. It offers an alternative rate to affected parties who cannot agree on a rate to replace LIBOR. To be clear, the rate offered under this legislation is one option. It does not prevent these parties from agreeing to something better that suits those particular needs of that contract. Again, this bill was passed out of committee in July. Now, 4 months later, the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor were finally able to include their portions of this. That is 4 months of inaction that has caused some of that now, today, concern by many on this side of the aisle. To make this situation more frustrating, we still don't know where the Senate stands. I don't, the chair doesn't, and certainly the industry doesn't know where the Senate is. Frankly, maybe the Senate doesn't know itself. But, hopefully, today will spur them into this conversation. The bottom line is this process could have been much, much better. In fact, it should have been much, much better. It must be better when we are talking about preventing systemic risk to our financial system. Our regulators who supervise the financial system have stated that this is a satisfactory fix, but I would wager a bitcoin that they aren't happy with how we arrived here today. As a whole, I would like to thank the regulators for their hard work, and, in fact, I do believe that this bill would not be here today without their guidance. But this is not the process that Financial Services Committee Republicans would have pursued, and it is certainly not quite the bill that we would have drafted. But there are trillions of dollars at stake, and the safety and soundness of our financial system is at the stake, and here we are with an eleventh hour scramble again. Unfortunately, that seems to define how Washington, D.C., is being run today. I will not stand in the way of this process, of allowing this process, and the progress for our regulators to be able to supervise this financial system. But I do encourage my Republican colleagues to trust our regulators and support this legislation despite having some doubts about the process of what we are seeing here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my comments for our colloquy, but the gentleman certainly knows that communication has been slim at best between staff and Members. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who is a leader on this issue.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. I know this is an issue that is both thrilling and exciting, but let me just state that the problem I am hearing from some of my colleagues is they don't necessarily understand the depth, breadth, and work that has gone into this for years prior to this. They know that it is showing up. They are questioning whether there was a hearing; they are questioning whether there was a proper markup; and sadly, they are questioning that because it seems to be following a pattern as of late. That is why there are questions. Mr. Hill, others from the committee, and I are trying to alleviate that. A number of our colleagues have expressed they haven't had time to really dive into it and come to us with those types of questions. So we are trying to deal with that. But as far as our colloquy here, we both described in our respective remarks that it is regulators who ultimately worked on that. Mr. Chairman, is that correct?

Mr. HUIZENGA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Yes, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, OCC, FHA, CFPB, and, of course, the Fed. I appreciate the technical advice that each of them has lent and, ultimately, their comments. They actually reviewed every change that was made to this bill as sufficient to address the issue. It is fair to say that it is a fix that these regulators have requested. Is that fair?

Mr. HUIZENGA. Let's turn to the Senate here. It is my understanding, however, that there is no consensus in the Senate and that it is unlikely, frankly, that any action in the Senate will specifically, exactly reflect this bill. Would that be a characterization that you have as well?

Mr. HUIZENGA. I think we can let that reflect as a yes. The Senate will probably be acting. We know that they will be acting, as has been expressed by the players on the Senate.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Please.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. And I will just make a few final points on this bill. There are trillions of dollars that are caught up in this, and this is about the safety and soundness of our financial system. Whether it is mortgages, car loans, you name it, this is an international stage where this is being played out on. And as I have said, we could do better than an eleventh-hour scramble; should have done better than an eleventh-hour scramble, but here we are. Again, this is not the process that I would have chosen or my colleagues on the Republican side would have pursued. It is not the bill necessarily that we would have drafted. But I will not stand in the way of allowing our regulators to supervise the financial system within checks, within proper checks. This is not giving them free rein. I do expect that there will be changes to occur from the Senate. I look forward to hearing and listening to the regulators on those changes. I do encourage my Republican colleagues to listen to our regulators, but, more so, listen to your Republican colleagues who have been working on this issue. And I ask that they support this legislation. And, no, we will not see an increase in government. No, we will not see an increase in the regulatory footprint. It clarifies how we are going to be dealing with and how these private companies are going to need to move forward with the legacy contracts that they have that no longer are within the parameters that are allowed because of this fraud that had happened within the LIBOR system. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I don't know how you follow Andy Barr and that story. Madam Speaker, Andy talked a lot about Carol, as he should, but we also want to talk about him and how he responded. This is an opportunity to turn a tragedy into hope. And there are a lot of people that would be too bitter, too angry, too frustrated, too betrayed to take that opportunity and refocus it and turn it into help for others. Madam Speaker, Andy is doing that, and he is showing his daughters what his wife would do. So to those of us who knew her, he is absolutely right, I can still hear in my mind's ear this, ``just get it done.'' It would be a desperate tone sometimes, ``just get it done.'' But the words that I think of as I was sitting here, and I have sort of thrown aside all the prepared remarks, and I want to speak from the heart. I just started writing down a few words.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Passionate, patriot, fierce--not mean, but fierce--and focused. She was a leader of teams, but a leader of her family, too. And, Madam Speaker, that is Andy. He has been forced into some roles that he was not expecting he was going to have to take care of. And this is what he does best. He throws himself in. He dives in, and he works hard to help others. And that, too, is a legacy, a legacy for Carol and for the girls. And for Eleanor and Mary Clay, may they know that their mom loved them. She loved them. And their dad loves them. And Carol is not with us today, but she is not gone because we won't forget her. And we will make sure her legacy continues. Madam Speaker, we love Andy, and we are here for him. I am so grateful we can help so many others around the country.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a symbol of true bilateral relations and collaboration between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States. One hundred years ago, a group of Dutch Americans, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, established the Netherland-America Foundation. The creation of this foundation, commonly known as NAF, has spurred innovation and cooperation between our two nations through engagement with the arts, business, and public policy. NAF works alongside the Caucus on the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which I am proud to co-chair, to strengthen the existing relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Dutch-American network has established deep connections throughout both of our nations, which is evident by the many NAF chapters spread from coast to coast here in the United States, including in my home area of west Michigan, as well as the Netherlands. One of the greatest examples of exchanges between our nations is the prestigious NAF-Fulbright Fellowships that enable the foundation to offer awards to Dutch and American scholars pursuing graduate study degrees. I am honored to recognize the Netherland-America Foundation and its 100-year record of success in celebrating our shared heritage and enhancing our cultural exchange. These strong bonds will continue to build on our past successes and develop a more prosperous and mutually beneficial relationship in the future.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Corporal Duane E. Dewey for his service, sacrifice, and dedication to our country. Corporal Dewey's instinctive action and bravery saved the lives of a number of his fellow soldiers and earned him the highest military decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor. He began his service in the Marine Corps in 1951 when he enlisted for the duration of the Korean war. On April 16, 1952, Corporal Dewey and his fellow marines were engaged in a firefight where they were outnumbered more than 20-1. During this fight, Corporal Dewey was wounded in the legs by an enemy grenade. While being treated for this injury, another grenade was thrown within reach. At a moment's notice, Corporal Dewey grabbed the grenade and literally sat on it while pulling the medic who was treating him onto his body, using his body as a shield to save those around him. Amazingly, although he sustained severe injuries from both grenades and a separate additional bullet wound to the abdomen, Corporal Dewey survived the fight. These actions of this great, brave, and courageous man earned Corporal Dewey the Medal of Honor, which I hold here today, his challenge coin. It was actually presented by President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself, the first one that he did personally, who notably remarked--accurately, I would say--that Corporal Dewey must have a ``body of steel.'' Madam Speaker, Corporal Dewey is the epitome of an American hero. May we honor his legacy and never forget his selfless actions.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 209, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 826 Divided Families Reunification Act, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lieutenant Colonel Phillip James DeVries II on his retirement after 28 years of honorable service to our Nation. I stand with the people of West Michigan in recognizing the tremendous impact Lieutenant Colonel DeVries has had on our Nation and abroad. Lieutenant Colonel DeVries began his service at West Point, where he was commissioned as Second lieutenant Field Artillery Officer. He then went on to become a Strategic Plans and Policies Officer in the United States Army, where he aided in strategizing and planning the future of the Army. Chosen for his dedication to international affairs, he also had the honor of attending the NATO Defense College, where he gained the experience to participate in multiple international assignments involving 22 countries. Lieutenant Colonel DeVries was deployed four times throughout his career and faithfully served his country through strategic operations and on the ground. Lieutenant Colonel Phillip DeVries truly is an American hero, and his service will have a lasting effect both nationally and internationally. Madam Speaker, it is because of dedicated, honorable individuals such as Lieutenant Colonel Phillip James DeVries II that I am incredibly proud to serve Michigan's 2nd Congressional District. I join with those in West Michigan and around the globe in thanking Lieutenant Colonel DeVries for his many years of service and wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 209, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 826 Divided Families Reunification Act, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today with an opportunity for this body and the United States Congress to save lives. The Hyde amendment has been an essential safeguard that has defended the unborn and protected millions of lives for more than 40 years. A recent estimate credits the Hyde amendment with saving more than 2.4 million precious and innocent lives. Historically, measures which prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to perform abortions have garnered strong bipartisan support. In fact, President Biden was a vocal supporter of the Hyde amendment during his decades of service in the U.S. Senate. However, it is clear that Democrats in Washington have changed their mind, as they have recently made it their mission to eliminate these longstanding protections and force families in west Michigan and across the Nation to violate their deeply held beliefs by funding abortions on demand with their hard-earned tax dollars. I believe, as millions of Michiganders and those across America believe, we must embrace a culture that protects the values of life. Using taxpayer dollars to end the lives of innocent children is wrong. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am opposed to this bill, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 1187. Mr. Speaker, today, my Democrat colleagues, once again, are seeking to hijack our securities laws to push leftwing political and social agendas, despite dressing it up as investor protection. Make no mistake, this bill will increase costs on publicly owned companies, discourage private companies from going public; and, frankly, could encourage not only private companies to stay private, but even have and entice public companies to go back to being private companies. This is going to result in fewer investment opportunities for everyday American investors, also known as our constituents, who are saving for retirement, a college education or simply looking to just build a better life. In short, this bill will increase the number of government-directed, mandatory disclosure requirements on publicly traded companies, which will increase compliance costs on companies and divert company resources that could have been used to create more jobs. Now, to be fair, this is a job-creation bill. However, the only jobs created by this bill will be for a special tranche of attorneys, corporate compliance coordinators, and the occasional scientist; not exactly what an economist would call productive-types of jobs. Under this bill, public companies would be required to disclose: Environmental, social, and governance issues, as well as climate risk. These metrics would be set by the Securities and Exchange Commission, not Congress; Descriptions of any expenditure for political activities and donations to political candidates or trade organizations by executives, these are duplicative of existing requirements, for example; The ratio between the pay raise percentage of the company's executives and the pay raise percentage of the company's median employee. This is, in some ways, duplicative of the mandatory CEO pay ratio disclosure that Democrats put into the Dodd-Frank Act, which itself is an especially useless metric; country-by-country tax and financial reports from multinational enterprises. This will upend the current country-by-country tax reporting rules overseen by the IRS. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. My friends across the aisle are using the Federal securities laws to implement their partisan wish list of social policy priorities. They are doing it through mandatory disclosure regimes that are, at best, tangentially related to actual investment decisions. To be clear, if information presents a material investment risk to a publicly traded company, the company is--wait for this--already required to disclose it. That information is out there for those companies that have material risk. Materiality has been, and continues to be, the touchstone of our public company disclosure regime for more than eight decades and has actually even been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It has held the test of time, and we simply cannot just discard it to appeal to the Democrats' progressive agenda. Our capital markets are the best in the world in no small part because materiality is the basis of our disclosure regime here in the United States, yet my Democrat friends, apparently, want to throw it all away for the sake of appealing to leftwing stakeholders. Additionally, H.R. 1187 will greatly expand the SEC's jurisdiction by requiring the SEC to promulgate disclosures on environmental, climate change, political spending, tax reporting, and foreign policy issues, among others. This is not the sweet spot for the SEC. It does not have the experience in any of these issues, and is not the appropriate entity for determining these metrics or industry standards, nor is the Securities and Exchange Commission the appropriate entity to review and enforce such disclosures. The SEC knows how to regulate materiality. That is their expertise. They are not climatologists or climate scientists. They are not election law experts. And they most certainly do not know international tax law. That is the purview of the EPA, NOAA, the FEC, and the IRS. Furthermore, smaller public companies will bear the burden of additional compliance costs. This bill fails to account for the impact it will have on smaller businesses and companies, especially those who are looking to go public. Or maybe I should say, were looking to go public. They certainly do not have the infrastructure or resources to spend on fixed costs of compliance like this. H.R. 1187 will result in fewer investment opportunities for American investors. It will discourage private companies from going public and encourage public companies to go private to avoid these burdensome new nonmaterial and useless disclosure requirements. Sadly, this will hurt the everyday investors, our constituents, that the Democrats claim they want to help. In other words, this bill stands to harm everyone saving for retirement, a college education, or just looking to build a better life. This is just a bad bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1187. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a leader on this issue.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), who is a new Member to this House Chamber and an outstanding Member.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who has been an outstanding voice on these particular issues.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Sheriff Kim Cole of Mason County in Michigan. He was named Michigan Sheriffs' Association Sheriff of the Year this past week. This award recognizes the sheriff who has made outstanding contributions to law enforcement and the criminal justice profession, demonstrates exceptional service to their community, and has contributed to the betterment of the Michigan Sheriffs' Association. Kim Cole was first elected sheriff in 2012 and is currently serving in his third term. He started at the Mason County Sheriff's Office as a reserve deputy, and then was hired by the Mason County Sheriff's Office as a full-time deputy in 1985. He was then promoted to sergeant in 1993. What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that Cole's great-great grandfather, Henry Cole, served as one of Mason County's first sheriffs. Now, Kim will be the first one to tell you that you are only as good as the people you surround yourself with, and he is extremely proud of all of those who he serves with. Kim leads with integrity, courage, fortitude, and compassion, and has a passion to serve his community. Kim Cole, I want to say thank you. Mason County is a better place to work, live, and raise a family because of you.