Bill Huizenga

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the remaining time on both sides.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, may I also inquire as to how much time was taken off of the last--for the previous speaker?

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

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I do have an inquiry of the majority as to how many more speakers she may have. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

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

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's not be Pollyannaish. The facts are facts. Yes, our economy, for the first time in ever--certainly, in the modern era--came to a screeching halt, not because of bad business decisions, not because of malicious or malfeasance or illegal activities, much like we saw in the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 financial crisis that started in housing. We don't know exactly where our recovery is going to go. We have gotten some good signs. But, again, we cannot be overly optimistic without being prepared. But facts are facts, and here is one fact: In April, we saw historic declines in new home purchases. I shouldn't say ``new homes.'' These were contracts to purchase homes. In May, we saw a historic rebound of 44.3 percent. Why did that happen? Because in April, both buyers and sellers were sidelined by this pandemic. Why did we see this rebound in May? Because the American people have optimism, as well. That and basically zero interest rates from the Fed probably helped, too. But that is the point. We have been coming together to try to turn this economy around. Well, in this bill today, we are told that we can't wait. This bill can't wait. Yet, what you need to know is, this bill is not ready. And I will give you a perfect example of this. Page 71, section 105 of the bill that was debated in the Rules Committee that had been part of the original HEROES Act, the so-called HEROES Act, from a month ago, was part of my colleague from Iowa Mrs. Axne's standalone bill. It actually referenced a rural housing program as having $25 trillion, not $25 million as it had been intended, but $25 trillion in that. Clearly, this bill has been a cut-and-paste job all the way along. It was rushed when it was the HEROES Act, the so-called HEROES Act, because that was part of the grab bag that was out there. It was rushed when my colleague, Mrs. Axne, introduced it. It was rushed now in this bill. So, it does beg the question: What else got missed, Mr. Speaker? Well, here is what else: We are told that the money has run out. We have run out of the money that we have appropriated. What you need to know is that all the billions of dollars that were allocated have not yet been spent. But, wait, we are told that this was spent already, and it isn't enough. Well, what you need to know is that they want to create new programs to spend hundreds of billions of dollars with zero new reforms or oversight put into this bill. None. That is not responsible. While you were told that this bill is only going to go to the needy, the poor, the disenfranchised--after all, this is a homelessness program--what you need to know is they are going to send $6,000 per month--$6,000 per month--to someone making $131,000 in the Speaker's district--$131,000. That person qualifies for a homelessness program? I can tell you, not in west Michigan. I can tell you, not virtually anywhere else in the country. I don't understand how my colleagues, with a straight face, can say that this is all about homelessness and all about helping those who have been disadvantaged and have not had a break in life. Well, $131,000 a year is a pretty darn good break in life, I think. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had an opportunity to amend this bill. I would have some amendments. I wish we were doing a modified rule. It would even allow some of those amendments. Yet, here we are today, no input from anybody other than what the Speaker's office and the chair's office had said is going to be in this bill. We are plowing ahead with a bill that we know will not see the light of day when it hits the Senate. By the way, I am a little confused when the chair early on admonished me and said I should go and negotiate with the Senate about the bill that had been passed previously. So, I say this a little tongue in cheek, but anybody who has watched ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' knows the House passes their legislation; the Senate passes their legislation; and then it comes together, if we are going to negotiate it out, not in the middle of this process. Why not negotiate and amend the bill that is before us today, where it properly should be happening? Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is a serious, serious issue for our country. I know this. My family has been in construction and in housing for now three--going on a fourth--generations. We have seen it. We have seen the ups and downs. My grandfather, my namesake, started in the Depression era. My dad continued it through the 1970s, through the 1980s, into the 1990s. Then, I started getting involved. I have lived through a couple of economic downturns myself, trying to keep a family company afloat, trying to provide housing and jobs. Mr. Speaker, here is what we need to do, in my opinion. We need to negotiate in good faith. This bill is not an attempt to do that today. I am disappointed in that. I wish we could, but I think, once again, we are seeing politics triumphing over people. We are seeing political footballs take the place of real policy issues. When your objective is nothing but November, guess what? The American people lose. That is the shame in today's debate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I know that there are some people on the other side of the aisle who are a little uncomfortable with this bill but don't feel they can vote ``no.'' I wish they had the courage of their convictions. Today, I will be voting ``no'' and encourage my colleagues as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would remedy some of the shortfalls in H.R. 7301 and would add some bipartisanship to this legislation. This motion only strengthens this legislation and increases the chance of this bill making it through the Senate and being signed into law. This amendment would simply add four provisions to the bill, each of which would reduce bureaucracy and increase oversight of these funds so that they reach the people who need them swiftly. First, this amendment would harmonize the definitions of homelessness between HUD and the Department of Education. For too long, HUD has failed to think of the children who lack a permanent and stable home, shifting funding away from this vulnerable population, who, as the Department of Education acknowledges, is, in practice and in fact, homeless. Our amendment permanently ends that disparate treatment of the kids and makes them fully eligible for the substantial increase in funding at HUD under this bill. Second, the amendment would include the bipartisan Yes in My Backyard Act, H.R. 4351, which passed the House by voice vote earlier this year. This provision would strengthen the oversight in this legislation and compel high-cost localities to consider the local regulations that have been put in place that increase housing costs and put increased rent and homeownership barriers on American families. Getting rid of these barriers would help cities all over America build more housing and lower costs for everyone. Third, this amendment would get rid of the bureaucratic red tape currently in the bill that prevents some of our most accomplished and successful housing and addiction treatment service providers from being eligible to receive funds. Why the majority would want to disqualify shelters and other housing service providers that make it their mission to treat individuals who are struggling with alcoholism or drug addiction makes no sense at all to me. Finally, this amendment would ensure that these funds would be directed to where they are needed: to the Nation's taxpayers and their dependents who are struggling right now. Basic common sense says that we should not be spending money on those who are unlawfully present in the United States at a time when millions of Americans and legal residents are out of work, overmatched with their bills, and fighting to do more with less. Combined, these provisions would help make a bad bill better and give greater accountability and focus to the nearly $200 billion in new, unpaid-for, untargeted, unaccounted-for spending in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I just wanted to clarify and make sure that we are all on the same page. And I might add that I deeply respect my colleague and friend from Georgia, and we have worked on some issues. I will note that HUD has not been able to get the money out the door to those families that need the help with what they have already been given, and yet we are trying to put more into that pipeline. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, there was not a granting on the front end of that. Will that time be counted against the majority's time?

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. John W. Rose), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HUIZENGA. I am currently opposed to the bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5332, and it is not because I don't believe that there isn't a motive behind this that isn't intended to help consumers. I just don't think it is going to hit the target. This bill requires the three largest nationwide credit reporting agencies to create a single shared online portal to allow consumers one-stop access to consumer reports, credit scores, and credit freezes, as well as to initiate disputes. This portal would contain information on consumer rights and directions on how to dispute a credit report. The bill requires credit reporting agencies to match all nine digits of a consumer's Social Security number with the information included in a consumer file. In addition, the bill codifies the CFPB's supervision of credit reporting agencies and expands their authority to establish ``administrative, technical, and physical safeguards,'' currently under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, to all credit reporting agencies. The bill provides injunctive relief to allow a court to compel a credit reporting agency to fix an error or remove inaccurate information from a consumer report. Furthermore, the bill creates an additional ombudsman at the CFPB tasked with resolving persistent errors on reports that are not addressed in a timely fashion and allows the ombudsman to make referrals to the Office of Supervision and Enforcement for corrective action. We are all supportive of increased access and availability on credit reports, scores, and file freezes, but this legislation is just overly broad and proscriptive. I, too, like one of my other colleagues who just talked about having mysterious things show up in the mail, have been a victim of that. I have also had my credit card numbers stolen in the past. We have had to be online and try to deal with these things. The goal to make sure that we are all protected as much as possible is a lofty goal. The problem here, though, is that this is going to potentially decrease competition, which then actually disincentivizes that access; increasing fraud risk, which I am very concerned about; propping up the trial bar, which I know is a common theme here in Washington, D.C., at least out of one party; and expanding the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So, let's talk a little bit about the PII, that personally identifiable information. When you are matching all nine digits of consumers' Social Security numbers, it doesn't provide any alternate methods for verification. We have had problems with this in the past, and I, for one, and many Republicans have consistently--in fact, a number of my Democrat friends--have consistently expressed concerns regarding the private sector and government's overreliance on the use of these Social Security numbers for identity verification, which threatens consumers' personal information. I oppose the Securities and Exchange Commission and other Federal agencies' use of PII in their databases because there have been breaches. I am reminded of the old adage: Why would you rob a bank? Because that is where the money is. Why would you go after a database? Because that is where the digital gold is. What we are doing is, we are putting more digital gold into a new database. So we are increasing that vulnerability. We need to be working to promote more competition in the credit reporting and scoring industry, not less. I think that is what this bill, unfortunately, is doing. Instead, we should be debating more targeted solutions, such as H.R. 3821, which would bolster cybersecurity capacity at credit reporting agencies, encourage an alternative to use of Social Security numbers, protect minors against fraud, and help consumers who may be facing medical debt as a result of the global pandemic. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 90, which is an effort to overturn a long-overdue regulatory update of the Community Reinvestment Act. Frankly, it is ludicrous to compare this modernization effort to bringing us back to 1930s banking policy. I don't understand how my colleagues on the other side can possibly equate that. So we all agree the fundamental purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act is to combat unacceptable, discriminatory redlining, and demand that banks meet the credit needs of their communities. There is no disagreement on that. My friend from New York laid out that history very, very well. It is the reason why we support the CRA and modernizing it. However, the regulations promulgated to implement the CRA haven't been meaningfully updated since 1995. Now, earlier we were talking about credit reporting, and the chair cited the fact that we had not addressed this in 17 years, as to why we needed to pass the bill that was on the floor. Well, we haven't addressed the CRA in any meaningful way for 25 years. We have 8 years on that on this particular issue. So in May of this year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a final rule that modernizes the Community Reinvestment Act regulations for the 21st century. The final rule provides clarity to banks on what activities count for a Community Reinvestment Credit, updated the geographic definitions of a bank's community, as well as accounts for the technological transformation of banking services that we have seen. This will ensure that banks' reinvestment will be in those communities that need it most. The final rule establishes new performance standards and metrics that will allow OCC bank examiners to measure performance objectively and produce more consistent, useful, and timely Community Reinvestment Act evaluations to provide more clarity to banks. Now, I understand that some of my colleagues want to have this ``let's move the target to my pet project'' kind of a way of evaluating where a bank is going, but that is not what it is intended to do. Lastly, this modernization introduces objective reporting measures that will allow comparison over time and between banks, which has never been possible in the history of the CRA. What is a good project in one neighborhood should be viewed as a good project in an adjacent neighborhood, and that isn't the case today. As we work to ensure a strong economic recovery for all Americans-- all Americans--it is critical that we encourage financial institutions to continue to provide services to those most in need. I have the poorest county in the State of Michigan. I have urban and suburban areas. These are issues that affect all of America. The OCC's rule will play an important role in this recovery effort by encouraging more capital, investment, and lending services in the communities hardest hit by COVID-19.