Bill Huizenga

Mr. HUIZENGA

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

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of time remaining on each side?

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of time remaining on each side?

Mr. HUIZENGA

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

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to my attendance at the White House for the signing ceremony for H.J. Res. 41 on Tuesday, February 14, 2017. Had I been present for roll call vote number 88, ordering the previous question of H. Res. 99, I would have voted yea. Had I been present for roll call vote number 89, Adoption of H. Res. 99, the combined rule providing for consideration of H.R. 428--Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act and of H.J. Res. 42--Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants, I would have voted yea. Had I been present for roll call vote number 90, ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 116--I would have voted yea. Had I been present for roll call vote number 91, Adoption of H. Res. 116--The combined rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 66--Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by States for non-governmental employees and of H.J. Res. 67--Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by qualified State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees, I would have voted yea.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. And even without this SEC extraction rule in effect, fraud will still be fraud and corruption will still be corruption. Both will still be illegal activities that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Voting for this resolution is a vote to right the ship. This is a vote to reset the regulatory process. Congress needs to send this flawed regulation back to the SEC drawing board and instruct the SEC to get the provision right by promulgating an appropriate rule under section 1504. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to write a rule. I am not sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts would be happy with it. I am not sure that the SEC would be happy with it. Again, having that debate here in the well of the House, I was not here for the writing of Dodd-Frank. I am dealing with the echo effects of it, and that is what we are trying to do right now. So rather than us having that, I put it back to the SEC.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I will point out, though, what my resolution does, is it directs the SEC to go back to the drawing board. It is not our job to write the rule. You are asking for that proposal. The SEC wrote a rule; it got struck down by the courts. They got sued again.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act was like many other provisions that were ultimately included in the sprawling law. They had absolutely no relationship to the underlying cause of the financial and housing crisis. However, some have used the financial crisis to hijack Federal securities law in order to push a socially motivated agenda. Specifically, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission to annually report payments such as taxes, royalties, fees, production entitlements, and those types of things made to a foreign or the U.S. Federal government relating to the commercial development of minerals, oils, and natural gas. Companies subject to section 1504 must report the type and total amounts of these payments made for each project, as well as the type and total amounts of payments made to each government. These payments cover, as I said, taxes and other things that are really business expenses. While this may be a laudable goal, using Federal securities law and the SEC to enforce social issues is inconsistent with the SEC's core mission and completely inappropriate. Just to remind everyone, the SEC's mission by law is to: One, protect investors; two, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and three, facilitate capital formation. I would liken what they are doing by having the SEC put this rule in place sort of like requiring your police department to be in charge of road repair, too. It is just not their expertise. The SEC recognized this fact and stated that section 1504 ``appears designed primarily to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives,'' not investor protection or capital formation. Notwithstanding the merits of the underlying policy goals, conducting American foreign policy is not what Congress created the SEC to do. In fact, just moments ago, the U.S. Senate confirmed Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State, and I would suggest that we let him direct our foreign policy. With all due respect to the commissioners and the SEC staff, none of them are really foreign policy experts. As we debate this resolution, let's be clear on what this isn't about. Some have tried to argue that a vote to vacate this provision is a vote for corruption somehow. This couldn't be further from the truth. Now, I understand and sympathize with the sense and the feeling of this that this rule makes supporters feel better about themselves, but it does not solve the real world issues. This foreign rule that has been brought up is really like comparing apples and oranges with the foreign rules versus this particular rule. And if we allow them to rewrite this particular rule, we might actually mirror what the EU and what other foreign governments are doing. Despite the claims to the contrary, H.J. Res. 41 does nothing to undermine the ability of the SEC and the Justice Department to police against foreign corruption. In fact, both of these agencies still have, at their disposal, Federal laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign officials.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes on Monday, January 30, 2017. Had I been present for roll call vote number 66, H.R. 374, To remove the sunset provision of section 203 of Public Law 105-384, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 67, H.R. 538, the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2017, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and thank the gentleman from New Jersey because nobody has fought longer or harder for the cause of life than this man. I am pleased to be up here because I know we both believe that we represent and rise on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are going to come to Washington, D.C., and march here this coming Friday because we believe that giving even one more life, one more person, the right to change the world is worth it. For the last 6 years, I have come to the well of the House with the gentleman from New Jersey and my colleagues on the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus to celebrate life and fight for the unborn. On this seventh occasion, I rise with a renewed sense of hope and optimism for our children's future. I commend President Trump for making one of his very first actions protecting unborn children around the world by preventing U.S. taxpayer dollars being used for foreign aid from being used to fund groups that promote abortion under the guise of family planning. We can't stop here, however. That is just one step. Now is the time for action. When President Bush restored these protections in 2001, he wrote: ``It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad.'' We took step two earlier today when a bipartisan majority of us here in the House voted to extend the Hyde amendment across all government programs and to ensure that no tax dollars from hardworking Americans are used to fund abortions here in the United States. Let's take additional steps to fight for the ones who don't have a voice. This Congress should protect unborn children from the violence of late-term abortion, protect medical professionals from being coerced to participate in abortions, and protect women from an industry that has put its financial interests first above women's health. Mr. Speaker, the government does not give us our rights. No. In fact, the government exists to protect our God-given rights that were given to us by our Creator and to protect the next generation. All you have to do is look at those original founding documents and it is easy to see. Well, we are here tonight for the same reason: that hundreds of thousands will march on Washington this Friday and fight for the rights of that next generation. I am pleased and proud to be able to be a part of that.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, again, I think we are stumbling over the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we are somehow paid by the words put into the Federal Registry here. The SEC is already covered by both governmentwide ethics laws and regulations as well as SEC supplemental ethics regulations which apply to all SEC employees, including the Chair. Perhaps the sponsor of the amendment is not aware that under existing Federal law, the SEC Chairman cannot participate personally in any matter that would have a direct and predictable effect on her financial interests or imputed financial interest, and I would invite the sponsor to review the code at this point. Additionally, SEC supplemental regulations prohibit SEC employees, including the Chair, from holding any security in a directly regulated entity, and they must also preclear all purchases and sales of securities. Further, the Chairman or Commissioner must not engage in any other business, employment, or vocation while in office, nor may she ever use the power of her office or the influence of her name to promote the business interests of others. Finally, the amendment does not seem to address what I believe Congressman DeSaulnier's description is intending to address as it is the Federal Reserve, not the Securities and Exchange Commission, that regulates the too-big-to-fail banks or, as the amendment states, financial institutions. The SEC does not regulate financial institutions. The code defines the term ``financial institution,'' and the definition includes ``a bank, a foreign bank, and a savings association.'' Since the SEC does not regulate any of these entities, the amendment would require the SEC Chair to divest of exactly zero entities. So notwithstanding that important discrepancy here, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out again that this amendment does not hit the target. The SEC does not regulate financial institutions. 15 U.S.C. 78c defines the term ``financial institutions,'' and that definition includes a bank, a foreign bank, and a savings association. The SEC does not regulate any of the entities that are described in this. In addition to that, the Securities and Exchange Commission's Chair-- Chairwoman in this instance, who will be resigning soon--is covered under governmentwide ethics rules and laws. The SEC has additional SEC- specific rules that are in place. This amendment would do absolutely nothing to support or diminish those because it doesn't actually address any situation that they have. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the sponsor is a constitutional law professor. I direct the gentleman to 5 CFR 2638.305 and 5 CFR 2638.304, which read: The Chair of the SEC is required to receive in person annual ethics training as well as an initial ethics briefing. Additionally, Chairmen and Commissioners are required to file ethics agreement letters in which they agree to divest. The bottom line is that we don't need additional words in the Federal Register to do what is already being done. The sponsor of the amendment mentioned that cost-benefit analysis is not in the U.S. Constitution, but neither is the SEC. However, due process is in the Constitution, and what we are trying to get at is due process to make sure that we have--us, as a legislative body--properly involved and engaged in this and that we understand what the goals and objectives of the Securities and Exchange Commission are when it is issuing a rule and whether that rule is going to effect the change intended. What are those benefits? Is it going to benefit and protect the consumer? Again, I reiterate the three elements of the mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission: number one, to protect investors; number two, to maintain fair and orderly and efficient markets; and number three, to facilitate capital formation. Those are the stated goals and is the job of the Securities and Exchange Commission. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I believe the sponsor of the amendment was in the Chamber when we were discussing this on the last amendment. Federal law, as well as SEC supplemental regulations, already govern ethics and conflicts of interest. It is well-known, especially if you check out my Twitter account, I think, that most people who support this President don't believe I support this President enough. A number of people would say that I haven't supported the SEC Chairman to the level that I should. This, frankly, is insulting to the current President as well as the Chair. Implying somehow that this Chair has preyed off of poor people until they went bankrupt, as was just sort of laid out by the sponsor of this, is an insult. To believe this of the SEC Chair, who is typically--and I know in this particular case is--a very accomplished professional, is amazingly shortsighted, I believe. Additionally, the Chair is required to receive personal annual ethics training as well as an initial ethics briefing. I direct the sponsor to review the statute on this. Additionally, the Chairman and the Commissioners are required to file an ethics agreement letter in which she will agree to divest prohibited assets, and if she has not done so prior to the appointment, she is to recuse herself from matters in which she has financial conflict or the impartiality conflict, which can be found also in code. Finally, the Chairman or a Commissioner is prohibited from engaging in any other business, employment, or vocation while in office, or she may never use the power of her office or her name to promote or influence a business interest. Once again, I think that what we are trying to do here with the underlying bill is to make sure that the SEC follows through on what the courts have mandated in previous rulings in that they use a cost- benefit analysis. This is not about fraud. This is not about whether Mary Jo White needs ethics training. This is about making sure that the SEC has an identifiable target and goal with the rules that it is putting in place and then analyzing whether the costs and the benefits weigh in favor of protecting the consumer. Ultimately, this amendment does nothing to forward that. I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I maintain my opposition to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I have to commend my colleague. This is close, but this isn't horseshoes. Words have meaning. And I have to tell you that our underlying bill does actually do what you are talking about. I will direct you to page 4. Page 4: ``evaluate whether, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, including market participants, individuals, businesses of different sizes, and other entities, including State and local government entities, taking into account, to the extent practicable, the cumulative costs of regulations.'' So, what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a problem. We have a problem with U.S. businesses not performing the way that they should. We have to understand, though, why that is happening. I have to point out to my colleague that, frankly, we have fewer publicly traded companies in this country right now. You have to ask yourself why. We have virtually no IPOs happening in this country. You have to ask yourself why. Well, we know the answer. It is because we have overly burdened ourselves in this country and are no longer competitive. In fact, here is what I look forward to on January 21: I look forward to repealing the Tax Code that we have, and then we don't have to worry; I am looking forward to repealing ObamaCare, and then we don't have to worry; I am looking forward to real regulatory reform, and then we don't have to worry about that as a country. So, while this may be close on the objective of what our sponsor is trying to do, I would recommend voting against this motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my friend Betsy DeVos, President-elect Trump's nominee to serve as the next Secretary for the Department of Education. Betsy is a passionate and dedicated servant with a big heart for kids. She is a grandmother of five who has made it her life's mission to ensure that all children in America have access to a quality education no matter what their ZIP Codes are. Betsy has fought for children in classrooms to State capitals, and her efforts have given more kids hope for a brighter future. In our shared home State of Michigan, Betsy led the effort to pass the State's first charter school law. According to Stanford University, Michigan's charter school students now perform at a higher level than do their peers. I witnessed Betsy's creativity and discipline firsthand when we served together on the board of the Compass College of Cinematic Arts, a Grand Rapids, Michigan-based film school and production company. We implemented rigorous standards that set Compass up for accreditation, and it now holds them accountable. I know that Betsy is up to the challenge of ensuring our children are prepared to compete and thrive in our ever-changing world.