Bill Huizenga

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5953, the Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams, or BUILD, Act, which would cut some of the regulatory red tape and alleviate unnecessary burdens that were created by Dodd-Frank. The Truth in Lending Act, or TILA, as it is referred to, and the Real Estate Settlements Procedures Act, also known as RESPA, required lenders to provide consumers disclosures about the estimated and actual real estate settlement costs and financial terms of the mortgages that they offer. Among other requirements, RESPA required standardized disclosures, such as good faith estimates, of the costs that the borrower should expect to pay at closing, and a list of closing costs commonly known as the HUD-1 document. TILA required lenders to disclose the cost of credit and the repayment terms of mortgage loans before borrowers entered into a transaction. These disclosures were intended to help consumers compare the terms and make informed decisions regarding the suitability of various mortgage products and services that they were looking at purchasing. However, Dodd-Frank mandated that the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection promulgate ``a single integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions . . . to aid the borrower . . . in understanding the transaction by utilizing readily understandable language to simplify the technical nature of the disclosures.'' It seems to me that in an effort to simplify the language, we might have added some more complicated language. But nonetheless, it remains compliant with both TILA and RESPA, which are very important. I can tell you, as a former licensed Realtor, these disclosures and these closing documents are extremely important. What we have seen, though, under this current situation, the TILA- RESPA Integrated Disclosure, or TRID, as it is called, the TRID rule was born out of this. The final TRID forms combined elements of the good faith estimate, the HUD-1, and the TILA disclosure. While these new forms were designed to be more consumer friendly-- they include sections on balloon loans and adjustable rate mortgages that may be applicable to traditional mortgage lenders--these forms are not relevant to charitable organizations like Habitat for Humanity, however. Additionally, the TRID integrated disclosure forms pose significant implementation and compliance challenges for these charitable organizations because they include difficult-to-understand timing and delivery requirements and other practical implementation issues that go well beyond the previous content requirements, such as requiring purchasing and training of costly complex software intended for traditional mortgage lenders. Therefore, many charitable organizations have difficulty with fulfilling the needed compliance related to the origination and servicing of their loans. The BUILD Act, introduced by Representative Loudermilk and Representative Sherman, would roll back requirements of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures Rule for charities, and only charities, like Habitat for Humanity and others, and, instead, allow these charities to use the good faith estimate and HUD-1 mortgage forms that had been in place previously. Groups like Habitat for Humanity and their local State organizations specialize in providing housing for low income and rural communities. The financing that is done at a zero percent interest rate to provide minimal cost to the occupant is commendable and a goal that we all have. This bill cuts yet another senseless and poorly written provision of Dodd-Frank that will help provide affordable housing for low income Americans in search of the American Dream. Specifically, this bipartisan bill would provide tax-exempt nonprofit organizations originating these zero interest mortgage loans the flexibility to choose the simplest and most cost effective delivery of the mortgage disclosures. Now these charitable organizations will be able to use their very scarce resources for building, repairing, and rehabilitating housing instead of spending it on costly compliance software. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the bipartisan work of Representatives Loudermilk and Sherman on the BUILD Act, which passed the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 35-0. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5953, the BUILD Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5953) to provide regulatory relief to charitable organizations that provide housing assistance, and for other purposes.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I also have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the author of this legislation.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5877, the Main Street Growth Act, introduced by my friend and colleague from the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), which would help further facilitate capital formation for smaller issuers. Specifically, the Main Street Growth Act would provide for the creation and registration of venture exchanges. Venture exchanges would be prohibited from extending unlisted trading privileges, or UTP, as they are known, to any venture security, which would prevent venture securities from trading on exchanges other than the one that it is listed on, in order to concentrate liquidity onto the venture exchange. In addition, venture exchanges would also be exempt from decimalization. The U.S. capital markets have, and continue to be, a vibrant ecosystem, fueling America's economic growth and generating millions of private sector jobs. These markets provide financing and needed resources to the smallest startups, as well as the largest international companies. However, a company's size has often impacted how easily it is to access capital, as larger companies generally found the capital markets easier to access than smaller companies. While the number of IPOs in the U.S. has rebounded from its post- crisis collapse--thanks, in part, to the success of the JOBS Act-- smaller companies still face significant regulatory and market impediments that disincentivize them from accessing capital via the public markets. There are differing perspectives as to why fewer companies, particularly smaller companies, have gone public over the past few decades. In fact, Chairman Clayton recently said, at the end of the day, no matter what those reasons are, it is ``not good'' that would be happening. The data suggests that, in order to fulfill its capital formation mandate, the SEC needs to tailor its approach to account for the varying nature and size of companies, including the one-size-fits-all regulatory structure of the current equity markets. As a natural extension of the JOBS Act and the new securities offerings available to startup enterprises, venture exchanges offer one possible solution to the liquidity and capital access challenges faced by smaller issuers. A venture exchange construct would expand access to capital for entrepreneurs; enable earlier public participation in the company's lifecycle; and attract post-issuance support, including research, sales, and capital commitments by market-makers. In fact, the SEC's Commissioners, market participants, and other interested parties have all expressed interest in the concept of venture exchanges as a means to provide secondary market liquidity to smaller companies. NASDAQ recently testified at a hearing held on May 23 of this year: ``NASDAQ recommends permitting issuers to choose to trade in an environment with consolidated liquidity as would be allowed under the Venture Exchange Legislation. By creating a market for smaller issuers that is voluntary for issuers to join and largely exempt from the UTP obligations, subject to key exemptions, we can concentrate liquidity to reduce volatility and improve the trading experience.'' Additionally, at that same hearing, the U.S. Chamber stated: ``While the JOBS Act did a great deal to help EGCs raise capital in primary offerings, it did comparatively little to address the secondary market trading in these same companies.'' Legislation like the Main Street Growth Act is an important bipartisan step to better tailoring market structure rules for small issuers and helping to facilitate capital formation. I commend my colleague, Mr. Emmer, on his bipartisan work on the Main Street Growth Act, which passed the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 56-0, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5877. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5877) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to allow for the registration of venture exchanges, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5749, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the vice chair of the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment Subcommittee.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5749, the Options Markets Stability Act, which would adjust the risk sensitivity of the capital treatment of centrally cleared options. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend from Illinois and fellow member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Hultgren, for his tireless work on this. Mr. Speaker, it may come as no surprise that this may not be the most exciting portion of the work that is done in our committee, it is not necessarily the most sexy of issues that we deal with, but it is extremely important. I appreciate the work of the gentleman as well as members on the committee from all sides. As I said, Mr. Speaker, options are incredibly useful and powerful risk mitigation tools that can help protect an investor's financial portfolio. From buying puts to hedge the downside risk of owning a stock to writing covered calls to collect income and cap potential losses, listed options strategies are protective tools employed by individual investors, institutions, and pension funds. But options do have a sensitivity to the price of the underlying stock such that, at any given point in time, the value of an option will respond differently to changes in the price of the option's underlying shares. Increased volatility in equity markets during recent months has revealed that certain bank capital requirements using the current exposure method--or CEM, as it is known--from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision discourages the use of central clearing, which is a central tenet of the Dodd-Frank Act. This is actually counterintuitive and the reason why we are here today trying to fix that. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act requires derivatives, including options, to be centrally cleared in order to take advantage of the risk-mitigating benefits of clearing. As a result, the role of clearing members, or houses, and the amount of transactions cleared by these institutions has expanded significantly. However, businesses and end users which use these options to manage business risks can only trade through a clearing member, as they are unable to access clearinghouses directly. The risk-based and leverage-based capital requirements for banks have made it cost prohibitive for clearing members to expand their derivatives clearing services when there is higher volume. As a result, liquidity providers who depend on banks to centrally clear their options are having trouble providing liquidity during instances of market volatility, therefore making it more expensive for individuals and institutions to hedge their positions through the use of options contracts. As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the opposite of what the intent of the Dodd-Frank Act was in this area. Although the Basel Committee agreed to replace CEM by January of 2017 with a more risk-sensitive method known as the standardized approach for measuring counterparty credit risk, or SA-CCR, exposures, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve has not yet implemented SA-CCR, and the transition is not imminent. To remedy these problems, H.R. 5749, the Options Markets Stability Act introduced by Representative Hultgren and Representative Foster, two colleagues from Illinois, will help alleviate the unnecessary adverse impact of the current exposure method, or CEM, on the listed options market. This legislation would require the Federal Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to implement a risk-adjusted approach to value centrally cleared options as it relates to capital rules to better and more accurately reflect exposure and promote options market-making activity. Specifically, the bill changes how the calculation of the CEM on options contracts is calculated on their notional face value rather than through a risk-adjusted value, which reflects actual exposures. By changing this calculation, it will incentivize the use of hedged positions and would reduce the amount of capital required to place these positions and reduce overall exposure. Market-maker liquidity is critical to vibrant options markets, and the knock-on effects are increased costs to investors, a heightened possibility of market dislocation during volatile environments, and the discouragement of centrally cleared products that help limit the systemic risk that we are all trying to eliminate. This bipartisan bill, which passed the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 54-0, is a modest adjustment to the risk- and leverage- based capital rules to better take into account the actual risk of clearing options. I commend my colleagues, Representative Hultgren and Representative Foster, for their bipartisan work on this important bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5749. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5749) to require the appropriate Federal banking agencies to increase the risk-sensitivity of the capital treatment of certain centrally cleared options, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, what an incredible story that we see here. I, too, want to congratulate both Congressman Pascrell, as well as Congressman Renacci for their work on this. As I was doing a little research and hearing the stories and looking at Wikipedia and some other things, it led to lots of different places. The amazing athleticism of this man was clear--the fact that he was 17 when he started playing baseball professionally; the fact that he played basketball professionally; the fact that he went on to be a major force in two different sports, both with the New Jersey Nets as well as with the White Sox as a player and as a manager--well deserved and, unfortunately, as has been pointed out, far too long in the making. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for their tenacity in going after this. It is not easy to get 300 of your colleagues in this body to agree on anything. That it is Tuesday would be difficult to get them to agree on, much less awarding a Gold Medal. So kudos and thanks to those gentlemen who worked so hard. Again, as I said, one of the things that struck me is the camaraderie that it sounds like he and Jackie Robinson had--speaking on the phone often; being the first two members of their race to break that color barrier in their respective leagues--what a wonderful story that is. Congratulations to the Doby family and to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on this bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1861) to award a Congressional Gold Medal in honor of Lawrence Eugene ``Larry'' Doby in recognition of his achievements and contributions to American major league athletics, civil rights, and the Armed Forces during World War II.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to, again, thank the ranking member for her work on this and being able to move forward on this very important issue. And I, again, want to encourage all of our friends on all sides, on both sides of the aisle, to be supportive of this. It is a very important thing as we figure out the situation with the IPOs here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, initial public offerings, or IPOs, have historically been one of the most meaningful steps in the lifecycle of a company. Going public was the ultimate goal for many entrepreneurs. You start a business from scratch, build it into a successful enterprise, and then open up an opportunity for the public to share in your success. Going public not only affords companies many benefits, including access to the capital markets, but IPOs are also important to the investing public. By completing an IPO, a company is able to raise much-needed capital for job creation and expansion opportunities, while allowing Main Street investors an opportunity to have an economic piece of the action and the ability to participate in the growth phase of a company. However, over the past two decades, our Nation has experienced a 37 percent decline in the number of U.S.-listed companies. Equally troubling, we have seen the number of public companies fall to around 5,700. These statistics are concerning because they are similar to the data we saw in the 1980s when our economy was less than half of its current size. For a myriad of reasons, the public model is no longer viewed as the most attractive means of raising capital. Instead, small and emerging growth companies are choosing to go public much later in their lifecycle or, frankly, choosing not to go public at all. We must work to change that trajectory, in my mind. In speaking to the New York Economic Club, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton stated: ``Regardless of the cause, the reduction in the number of U.S.-listed public companies is a serious issue for our markets and the country more generally. To the extent companies are eschewing our public markets, the vast majority of Main Street investors will be unable to participate in their growth. The potential lasting effects of such an outcome to the economy and society are, in two words, not good.'' That is from SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. I share Chairman Clayton's concerns. We need to ensure that our capital markets are open for innovators and job creators, and we must work to rightsize regulations for smaller companies as well. One way that Congress worked to lift burdensome regulations and help small companies gain access to these capital markets was the bipartisan Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, commonly known as the JOBS Act. Section 105 of the JOBS Act changed the ``gun-jumping rules'' to provide an exception from the definition of an offer to allow for the publication or distribution by a broker or dealer of a research report about an emerging growth company that is the subject of a proposed public offering. However, few investment banks have published any pre-IPO research since passage of the JOBS Act, and research coverage, in general, on small issuers continues to be an issue. This negatively affects investor interest and awareness in a company as well as its trading liquidity and, therefore, does not allow the company to launch the way that it properly could. This provision is intended to increase research, but, unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect, and, instead, there has been a significant decline--we have seen a significant decline over recent years in analyst research covering small public companies. According to the U.S. Chamber, ``61 percent of all companies listed on a major exchange with less than $100 million market capitalization have no research coverage at all.'' For equities with a market cap below $750 million, the average number of research analysts covering that stock is one, while equities above $750 million in market cap have an average of 12 research analysts covering the stock. Additionally, the amount of research written on small companies has declined even as the percentage of individual ownership in small cap companies has gone up, has increased. Little or no research coverage generally corresponds with lower stock liquidity, and reduced research coverage may particularly be disadvantageous to individual investors who have limited research capabilities on their own. In fact, one study published in June of 2017 in The Journal of Finance found that an increase in the number of analysts covering an industry improved the quality of analyst forecasts and information flow to investors. For that reason, it is important to examine current SEC rules and regulations affecting the ability of investment research coverage regarding these small issuers. The Treasury report on Capital Markets recommended a holistic review of the rules and regulations regarding research, including the global settlement, to determine which provisions should be retained, amended, or removed. Our bipartisan bill, the Improving Investment Research for Small and Emerging Issuers Act would direct the SEC to study and evaluate issues affecting the ability of emerging growth companies and other small issuers in obtaining research coverage, including SEC rules, FINRA rules, State and Federal liability concerns, the 2003 Global Research Analyst Settlements, and MiFID II. And not later than 180 days after enactment of that, the SEC will be required to submit to Congress a report that includes the results of the study and recommendations to assist these emerging growth companies, or EGCs, and other small issuers to obtain research coverage. Among the issues the SEC must consider are factors related to the demand for such research by institutional and retail investors, cost considerations for such research, and the impact on the availability of research coverage for small issuers due to a variety of market and regulatory conditions. The SEC's report must include recommendations to increase the demand for, volume of, and quality of investment research into small issuers, including EGCs. This legislation is supported by Biotechnology Industry Organization, also known as BIO; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Nasdaq; the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, also known as SIFMA; and the National Venture Capital Association. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Waters, for recognizing the importance of this research in our capital markets and working with me to address this issue and being a cosponsor of this. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on this bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6139) to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to carry out a study to evaluate the issues affecting the provision of and reliance upon investment research into small issuers.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I congratulate my friend and colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) for tackling this difficult and very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this much-needed legislation that would expand housing options for individuals who are transitioning out of addiction treatment and require continued support. These are typically people who have exhausted all of their resources already. Why? Because they are addicted. That is why they are in this, that is why they qualify for these housing assistance vouchers, and this is right on target for helping them. The THRIVE Act is an important piece of legislation with strong, bipartisan support that came out of our committee that would create a pilot program to allocate Section 8 housing choice vouchers to transitional housing nonprofits with evidence-based models of recovery and life skills training. It is important to note that this is 10,000 total vouchers out of the 2.2 million that are available, or one-half of 1 percent of all of those vouchers, whichever is less, so we are talking about a small portion of all of the total vouchers that are available. But here is what we do know, Mr. Chairman. Our country, our States, and our communities are in crisis right now. Over the last decade, there has been this dramatic rise in opioid abuse, whether it is the nonmedical use of prescription drugs, as well as illicitly manufactured heroin. We need engagement at every level. In light of this medical emergency, there is an extremely pressing need for additional transitional housing for opioid recovery. These housing programs must follow a proven evidence- based approach that has helped thousands of Americans to maintain sobriety after completing rehab, gain valuable job skills, and eventually transition back into society to lead independent lives. Time and time again, individuals who have just completed inpatient rehab programs are forced to live in housing situations where they are surrounded by people who are using the same illegal substances that sent them into rehab. We have to change that. While the evidence suggests that effective treatment and recovery plans should cover a span of 3 to 5 years for an individual, based on their needs and severity, we have a long way to go to properly prioritize and fund the recovery support programs and resources that individuals need in their communities. Twenty-three million Americans are in recovery today--let me repeat that--23 million people are in recovery today for substance abuse. A sober, safe, and healthy living environment that promotes recovery from substance abuse is essential in providing recovery support. These are people who qualify, as I said before, for these Section 8 vouchers. Because they have exhausted their resources, let's throw them a lifeline. Let's throw them some help. Let's allow them to have an opportunity to go and succeed. That is why I support the THRIVE Act, which also has the support of the Michigan Heroin and Opiate Prevention and Education program, which is known as Mi-HOPE, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, like in Michigan, like so many other places around the country, in 2008, we saw a massive economic downturn where people lost their jobs, lost their savings, and some even lost their homes. The Obama administration and their allies in Congress put forward a very flawed solution, which was called Dodd-Frank, which led to the slowest, weakest recovery in modern history. The American people were sold a bill of goods. Now what Congress is trying to do is get at the root cause. That is not what they had done before. They had denied hardworking families the economic recovery that they deserve. Economic growth stalled as access to basic financial services became less and less available to small businesses and lower income Americans. And America's small and medium- sized community financial institutions were saddled with a crushing regulatory burden. We are changing that in this bipartisan bill. Instead of ending too-big-to-fail, this regulatory monstrosity, called Dodd-Frank, enshrined too-small-to-succeed. On average, we are losing a community financial institution a day because of the extensive burdens placed on them by this one-size-fits-all regulatory structure. These crushing regulations have made it more difficult for consumers to access credit to buy a car, realize homeownership, save for retirement, plan for their kids to go to college, climb the ladder of opportunity, and grow their small businesses, which are critical to growing our economy. Today's bill, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, begins to provide relief to consumers and small businesses on Main Street. This bipartisan bill is combined with the momentum created by the tax reform bill that we had done previously. This bipartisan bill will continue to unleash American innovation, jobs, and capital, while supporting economic growth. Now, you may have just heard that this is a Republican plan only. Wrong. Sixty-seven votes in the Senate, including my two Democrat Senators from Michigan, voted for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this historic pro-growth bill, which we haven't seen in almost a generation, not since Gramm-Leach-Bliley. I appreciate all of the work that has been put into this bill in a bipartisan manner, and I look forward to supporting it.