Bill Huizenga

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 5461 currently under consideration.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5461) to clarify the application of certain leverage and risk-based requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to improve upon the definitions provided for points and fees in connection with a mortgage transaction, and for other purposes.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will address my remarks to the Chair, but, again, this is not about parliamentary procedure. This is about results. The only bill that we will see here that may bring confusion to this entire process is the one that my colleagues are advocating for, the Senate bill. It is the only bill that we haven't dealt with in committee. It is the only bill we haven't had a vote on in the Houses. The other three bills have passed, two of them unanimously by voice vote, and the other one had 12 people, out of a body of 435, vote against it. Sounds like it is overwhelming. If it is that confusing to my colleagues to figure out what bill and how they voted for it when they come to the floor to vote on this package, they maybe should reconsider their current line of work. This should not be that tough. This is, again, something that we need to move forward on. The political theater that seems to be happening here is on the other side. I am not sure why, if it is about trying to play to a base for an election issue or what, but this is the one time I think in the history of my working career that the whole is worse than the sum of its parts. This doesn't make any sense. So there has not been bipartisan work on the underlying bill, Dodd- Frank, which I might remind my colleagues passed with zero minority Republican votes when the bill was passed. This package of bills has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they oppose the Senate. And I guess I needed to clarify that my comments about people acting like this is holy writ from the heavens does tend to be concentrated with my colleagues over in the Senate who apparently don't want to touch this or others in the administration who oppose the nine-bill package on derivatives reform that passed overwhelmingly bipartisanly out of our committee as well. That is the kind of holdup that we have that is frustrating Americans, that is frustrating me as a policymaker and my colleagues, that is frustrating, frankly, future generations as they look in on this process. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to pass this package of bills that includes three bills that this House has already dealt with, that the Senate should have absolutely no opposition to or excuse why they will not take up. With that, I again ask my colleagues to pass this particular bill, H.R. 5461, and look forward to its passage here soon. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, again, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am curious why we are here. The House of Representatives is only going to pass Senate bills. I am curious why my colleagues would be willing to do that. I would love to hear from my colleagues, which overwhelmingly passed House bill does the Senate object to? We simply cannot get them to take our bills up. I am glad to hear that my colleague, Mrs. McCarthy, is going to be supporting this bill package. I too am hopeful. But I do believe that this is not political theater, for the robust list of supporters, like credit unions, banks, insurers of all sizes, the entire real estate community and end-users strongly support the policies that are within this bill. And I do have that list available as well, which I will include for the Record. So, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time. September 15, 2014. Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned trade associations, representing job creators across the country of all shapes and sizes, write to urge your support for bipartisan legislation recently introduced by Reps. Andy Barr (R-KY), Gary Miller (R-CA), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), and David Scott (D-GA). H.R. 5461, currently scheduled for floor consideration on Monday, September 15th, includes important technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that strengthen the underlying Act and provide critical clarifications to better oversee our financial system while allowing for economic growth. The ongoing implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act has revealed unintended consequences that have adversely impacted job creation and economic growth. We believe that the Barr- Miller bill, comprised of a series of noncontroversial, thoroughly examined, bipartisan proposals will fix these unintended consequences and help make financial reform more workable and effective. Specifically, this legislation contains the text of three bills previously approved by the House (H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act; H.R. 3211, the Mortgage Choice Act; H.R. 4167, the Restoring Proven Financing for American Employers Act) as well as one bill that recently passed the Senate (S. 2270, the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act) by unanimous consent. In fact, three of the four titles of this package have previously passed either the House or Senate without one dissenting vote. We urge your support for the Barr-Miller-Huizenga-Scott bill to help foster job creation and economic growth. Signed, American Bankers Association; American Bankers Insurance Association (ABIA); American Financial Services Association; American Insurance Association; Consumer Bankers Association; Consumer Mortgage Coalition; Community Mortgage Lenders of America; Credit Union National Association; The Financial Services Roundtable; The Financial Services Forum; Independent Community Bankers of America; Leading Builders of America; The Loan Syndications and Trading Association; Mortgage Bankers Association; National Association of Federal Credit Unions; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; National Association of Realtors; The Realty Alliance; Real Estate Services Providers Council, Inc. (RESPRO); Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who would like to clarify.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish I had actually asked if the gentlewoman would yield because I am confused. I am confused on a bill that she has voted three times--I am positive--three different bills, how that is divisive, how it is not targeted with significant Democrat support. I personally with one of these bills--my bill has been sitting in the Senate since June. It has been targeted, it has had Democrat support, and it has had Republican support. We simply cannot get the Senate to move, and I am not sure why my colleague would support a Senate bill without any House input, but not expect the Senate to look at our material and to look at our bills. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield now as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) the author of this legislation.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5461, a bill authored by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), my colleague on the Financial Services Committee, and cosponsored by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California and myself. This bill contains four titles, three of which having already passed this House with overwhelming or unanimous support and one of which passed with only a dozen ``no'' votes. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that the Senate sends us meaningful legislation; and, frankly, it is even rarer when they send us legislation that amends and fixes the Dodd-Frank Act. As we on the Financial Services Committee have seen in our hearings and our markups, our friends on the other side of the aisle and the other side of the Capitol usually defend Dodd-Frank to the hilt, bestowing on it deference normally reserved for the sacred texts handed down from the heavens. Well, we should agree that Congress doesn't always get it right. When sweeping legislation is enacted--remember, Dodd-Frank is a 2,300-page bill--there are often areas that later need clarification, and that is exactly what we are talking about here today. Whatever one's position is on Dodd-Frank, we should all be able to agree that the text is not sacred and does need some fixing. That is why I am pleased that the Senate has sent us a bill to clarify that regulators should not impose regulatory capital requirements designed for banking institutions on insurance companies. That was not what was intended. The Senate bill, S. 2270, passed the other body unanimously. There is broad support in the House for a companion measure, but there is equally broad support for three other Dodd-Frank technical correction amendments that have previously passed this House: Mr. Barr's bill on the treatment of collateralized loan obligations under the Volcker rule, Mr. Grimm's bill to exempt end users from derivatives from Dodd- Frank's overreaching margin requirements, and my own bill on how points and fees are treated under Dodd-Frank's onerous qualified mortgage rule. My legislation that is included in this package is a strong bipartisan provision that modifies and clarifies the way points and fees in a real estate transaction are calculated. This provision is narrowly focused to promote access to affordable mortgage credit without overturning the important consumer protections and sound underwriting requirements that Dodd-Frank's ability to repay provisions has in place. Homeownership has been a pillar of American life for generations, and this particular provision will help more Americans realize this portion of the American Dream. This bill is a commonsense measure that should and, I believe, does have broad bipartisan support. I was puzzled, however, by a Dear Colleague letter produced by Ranking Member Waters circulated earlier today. In the letter, she writes that Mr. Barr has coupled the insurance capital bill with other ``divisive legislation.'' Now, I would ask my friend the ranking member: What divisive legislation are you referring to? Is it the CLO bill which passed the House on voice vote? Is it the end user bill which passed the House on the ranking member's ``yes'' vote herself and only a dozen ``nay'' votes? Or is it my bill that also passed the House by voice vote? I don't see the divisiveness, and I don't see where the problem is. The reality is Americans don't care about the parliamentary process so much as they want results. We are pleased that the Senate has finally come to the table on Dodd- Frank reforms. This is legislation that represents a step forward in working with the other body to make sure that my constituents and your constituents can get mortgages to buy their first home, that farmers can assess the financing that they need to buy tractors and work their land, and that Americans can buy insurance policies without severe premium increases. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5461, especially my Democrats friends who I believe support every component of the package. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Medal of Honor Recipient, Master Chief Hospital Corpsman William R. Charette, for his commendable service in the Korean War. William Charette was born in Ludington, Michigan. He stayed in Michigan until he signed with the U.S. Navy on January 11, 1951. Charette served in the United States Navy from 1951-1977. During his years of service, William Charette served in Korea, where he was a part of the 2nd Battalion of the 7th Marines. On March 27, 1953, Charette was serving near Panmunjom, Korea, when his company was attacked by enemy troops. Charette worked quickly to treat his fellow soldiers as best he could. While treating one soldier, a grenade landed near them, and Charette threw himself on top of the other soldier in an effort to absorb the blast. Although the blast destroyed Charette's medical kit he continued to treat soldiers by tearing off pieces of his uniform to help treat wounds. At one point, a soldier was so badly wounded that he was unable to move on his own accord. Charette stood up in the trench and lifted the man and carried him through enemy fire to safety. For his actions, William Charette was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 12, 1954. William Charette stands as a shining example of bravery and determination that all Americans strive toward. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Master Chief Hospital Corpsman William Charette for his service to the United States of America.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4315, and I appreciate my colleague from urban northern Virginia for his insight on the Endangered Species Act. But those of us from more rural areas actually understand that the challenges that are presented in this law as it currently stands beg for reform. This bill contains important reforms to the act, and it has been authored by Chairman Hastings, Congresswoman Lummis, Congressman Neugebauer, and myself. Within that is a provision that I had authored, which is commonsense legislation that makes the Endangered Species Act consistent with current law. It reforms the ESA litigation process while enhancing wildlife preservation, improving government efficiency, and protecting taxpayer dollars. And I know that is something that my colleagues on the other side have expressed, they are concerned with wasting precious dollars that have been appropriated to the EPA. Well, for too long, litigating attorneys have taken advantage of the Endangered Species Act, raking in millions of taxpayer-funded money. In many ESA cases, lawyers' fees climb as high as $300, $400, or even $500 an hour, with hardworking American taxpayers left to foot the bill. In fact, I have a 2013 quote here from David Hayes, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, who was so concerned about this waste of resources, that he said this: ``My major concern is timing, resources needs, the fact this has been fish-in-the-barrel litigation for folks who, because there is a deadline and we miss these deadlines and so, we've been spending a huge amount of, in my mind, relatively unproductive time fending off lawsuits in this arena.'' And I couldn't have said it better. But even worse, these rates can be awarded in cases where the Federal Government has settled with these groups that may not have even prevailed in the court system. This does absolutely nothing to benefit the species or the people and is not productive. My section of the bill seeks to remedy this unconscionable problem. Currently, the Equal Access to Justice Act limits the hourly rate for prevailing attorney fees to $125 per hour for veterans, small businesses, and the Federal benefit recipients. So it is time that we apply the same cap to the ESA citizen suits as well. So in times of tight fiscal budgets and escalating national debt, taxpayer dollars should be prioritized for the protection and recovery of species, not lining the pockets of highly priced lawyers. With that, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4315 and for the commonsense updates that are so desperately needed.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today we humbly ask our colleagues to join us in a moment of silence as we pay our respects and honor the memory of all 298 passengers aboard MH17 that had their lives tragically cut short.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, as cochair of the Dutch Caucus here in the U.S. House of Representatives, I rise today with a heavy heart to express our condolences at the tragic loss of life of nearly 300 people on Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. On that flight, there was one American and a number of others from Australia, Malaysia, and a number of other countries. But counted among those were 193 Dutch nationals. Just to put that in perspective, that is like having a country the size of the United States lose over 3,600 people. That is the impact that it has had with our friends in the Netherlands. This attack on innocent civilians can only be described, I believe, as an act of terror, as it was flying over Ukrainian airspace. We are rising today jointly, in a bipartisan fashion, to express our condolences to our friends in the Netherlands. The Netherlands was the first nation to ever recognize our Nation, the United States of America, officially back during the Revolutionary War. And they have been stalwart partners and stalwart friends throughout the history of our country. With that, I yield to my friend from Maryland.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Medal of Honor Recipient, Corporal Duane Edgar Dewey for his commendable service in the Korean War. Corporal Dewey was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He stayed in Michigan until he signed with the Marine Corps Reserve on March 7, 1951, at the age of 19. Corporal Dewey served in the United States Marine Corps from 1951-1952. During his years of service, Corporal Dewey served in Korea, where he was a part of the 2nd Battalion of the 5th Marines. On April 16, 1952, Corporal Dewey was serving as leader of a machine gun squad with Company E, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division, near Panmunjom, Korea. During a skirmish with enemy troops, Corporal Dewey suffered numerous injuries due to a grenade that exploded at his feet. While Corporal Dewey was being treated for his wounds, another grenade was thrown that landed at the squad's position. Corporal Dewey grabbed the grenade and covered it with his body in order to protect his fellow soldiers. For his efforts, Corporal Dewey was the first person to receive the Medal of Honor from President Dwight D. Eisenhower on March 12, 1953. Corporal Dewey stands as a shining example of bravery and determination that all Americans strive toward. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Corporal Duane Edgar Dewey for his service to the United States of America.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, my friend from New York was pointing out that, at some point, we are going to move on from the IRS, but I want to point out that this section is specifically about the enforcement of what the IRS has been doing. Last year, we learned that the IRS has been targeting American taxpayers for their political beliefs for the last 4 or 5 years. During this period, a culture of shading the truth was fostered and developed by directors and administrators throughout the IRS. Now this culture within the IRS has grown to one of stonewalling, doubletalk, and mistrust. It is up to Congress to use the power of the purse, Mr. Chairman, to rein in the IRS and force them to conduct their analysis in an unbiased manner. This is our constitutional tool. The IRS has proven itself to be unable to do so, which is why I am introducing this amendment that cuts more than $788 million from the IRS' budget. With the combined cuts in the underlying bill of $341 million, this will approximately cut the IRS' budget by 10 percent from its current funding levels. The underlying legislation takes a good step in the right direction, and many of the amendments, including the last one that was just adopted, are a step in the right direction, but I believe, unfortunately, that this doesn't go far enough. We need to keep in mind that the IRS is one of the most feared agencies within the Federal Government--left, right or center. They can freeze bank accounts, garnish wages, and seize assets with a flick of a pen. Congress needs to utilize the power of the purse--our constitutional tool and responsibility, I might add--to send the IRS a message to put an end to this newfound ``business as usual.'' It is up to Congress to prevent the IRS from ever slipping back into its targeting practices. The best way to do that is to force them to consolidate their resources and prioritize. Congress, itself, has been forced to do this. Our own offices, Mr. Chairman, have been forced to do this over the last number of years, and there is no reason why the IRS cannot follow suit. We cannot allow the IRS to be used as a political weapon because, as I had pointed out, it doesn't matter if an American's political views are left of the spectrum, right of the spectrum or somewhere in between. The IRS is one of the most powerful agencies that we have, and for them to be injected into this process as a political weapon is simply wrong. Political targeting is not the only example, however, and this is not the real problem I am trying to get at. I believe there is another problem, which is a tax on those who cannot defend themselves. Political targeting is only a part of the story. The other one is, in 2012, a Taxpayer Advocate Service report found that 69 percent of individuals who claimed the adoption tax credit were audited by the IRS. Okay. That seems like a pretty aggressive move. Unfortunately, for the IRS, only 1.5 percent of the credits claimed were ever disallowed. The Taxpayer Advocate Service and the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, have both noted that the adoption credit claims represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all individual returns for the 2011 filing season. By comparison, the IRS spent approximately 3.5 percent of its total staff days on the initial reviews, correspondence, and audits of these adoption tax claims. Let me repeat that. One-tenth of 1 percent are the total claims, yet the IRS spends 3.5 percent of all of its staff days in pursuing these. This is not about tax cheats. This is about harassment. In essence, the IRS spent 35 times the number of work hours investigating adoptive parents compared to other tax filers. West Michigan, which is the area I represent, is blessed to have one of the highest adoption rates in the entire Nation, hardworking families who want to bring another into their homes, someone who has been abused or neglected. They should not have to be burdened by the echoing footsteps of the taxman. I am angry, Mr. Chairman. The American people are angry, and they should be. Clearly, the IRS has too much time on its hands and not enough focus. The recklessness with which the IRS is acting by targeting Americans for their political views or as to whether they have adopted a child is simply wrong, and it must be stopped immediately. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am stunned that my amendment would be characterized as zeroing it out. In fact, my amendment provides $4.16 billion for IRS enforcement budget. I want to know what employer would reward unacceptable behavior. I think we have the answer, Mr. Chairman, and that is my colleagues across the aisle. This is a 19 percent cut to the enforcement budget, 10 percent cut overall. This brings us back to 2004-2005 levels and, in fact, this House approved a budget last year of $3.87 billion, so my amendment doesn't even bring us down as low as what had been passed by the House just last year. I urge passage of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 397 there was a technical issue with my voting card and I was detained getting to the well of the House to vote by physical card. I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank my colleague from California for working with me on this. I am glad to hear the elevation that this issue is getting. In fact, on Monday I met with Andrie Shipping out of Muskegon, Michigan, in my district about this issue, among other issues regarding Great Lakes shipping. I can tell you, though, that it seems to me as we passed the WRRDA bill just a short 7 weeks ago, as you pointed out, I was willing to compromise on that glide path. What I don't see currently is that glide path to the direction. We are, as you point out, nearly $58 million below what was laid out in that WRRDA bill. The chairman from Idaho has a very difficult job balancing all this, and he has pointed out that the nuclear energy program is the way that we are going to offset this. I will point out, though, that it is appropriated for $899 million this year, a level that is $36 million above the President's budget request, $10 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level, and $243 million above the level proposed by the House Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 2014. So it doesn't seem to me we are exactly raiding that when everybody has said that we are overfunding that portion of the bill, and it seems to me that this is a great way of impacting our economy to help create jobs and to help create the momentum to continue to move forward. So with that, I just want to thank the committee for working towards a solution. I know that I, too, had signed on to Mr. Boustany's bill earlier and have been a champion of this, and we are working towards a true solution on this. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and this critical maritime activity.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I would agree with that, those sentiments of my colleague. We do need to make sure that we are maintaining a manufacturing base of not just large, not just medium size, but small companies as well. I think, in this particular situation though, what we are trying to do is codify report language that identified a problem. The problem is that there is not a manufacturer that is going to be adequately able to supply that vital need of boots to our men and women in uniform, and that is why I put forward this amendment, and I urge passage of it as well. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer an amendment that will ensure a fair and open bidding process to supply our men and women on the front lines one of the most indispensable pieces of equipment that they use every day: their boots, their footwear. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds by the Defense Logistics Agency to implement the 2012 Small Business Administration's interim rule in regards to footwear, preventing the Defense Logistics Agency from bidding the contract as a small business set-aside. When the SBA released this new rule back in 2012, there was significant concern that they did not go through the normal rulemaking and public comment processes, and, therefore, more specifically, did not perform due diligence on how the changes would actually affect the footwear industry and the military supply base, which the SBA has even acknowledged. This rule dramatically changed the competitive landscape amongst companies supplying those Berry-compliant footwear to the U.S. military. There are very few footwear manufacturers actually located in the United States, and even fewer that manufacturer Berry-compliant footwear for our troops. Any reduction in this industrial base calls for immediate action to rectify the unintended consequences resulting from the SBA's changes to the small business size standards categories governing domestic footwear manufacturing for the U.S. military. Congress has addressed the rule's impacts on defense procurement in the House report to the fiscal year '14 National Defense Authorization, which expressed concern that the SBA did not follow the normal rulemaking and public comment procedures and has not subsequently addressed the issue with footwear manufacturers. It then called on the Defense Logistics Agency to use its discretion to maintain the manufacturer base. This amendment would essentially codify the report language, ensuring that all businesses capable of supplying high-quality footwear to the Defense Department still can. This amendment promotes competition, and it promotes fairness and consistency in the defense procurement process. And most importantly, it ensures that our men and women in uniform have access, regardless of who makes it, to the best equipment available. I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3211) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to improve upon the definitions provided for points and fees in connection with a mortgage transaction.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 3211, currently under consideration.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3211, the Mortgage Choice Act. As someone who worked in the housing industry for a number of years, this is a very important issue to me, and, more importantly, to my constituents in Michigan as well as, frankly, all of our constituents across the country. Earlier this year, the Qualified Mortgage, also known as the (QM)/ Ability to Repay Rule, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act went into effect. The QM rule is the primary means for mortgage lenders to satisfy their ``ability to repay'' requirements. Additionally, Dodd-Frank provides that a QM may not have points and fees in excess of 3 percent of the loan amount. As currently defined, points and fees include, among other charges: One, fees paid to affiliated, but not unaffiliated, title companies; two, salaries paid to loan originators; three, amounts of insurance and taxes held in escrow; four, loan level price adjustments; and number five, payments by lenders to corresponding banks as they interact with them, credit unions, and mortgage brokers in wholesale transactions--not in any kind of retail transaction. As a result of this confusing and problematic definition, many affiliated loans, particularly those made to low and moderate-income borrowers, would not qualify as QMs and would be unlikely to be made or would only be made available at much higher rates due to heightened liability risks. Consumers would lose the ability to take advantage of the convenience and the market efficiencies offered by one-stop shopping. I, along with Representative Gregory Meeks, introduced H.R. 3211, a strong, bipartisan bill that would modify and clarify the ways points and fees are calculated. I should note, Mr. Speaker, that of our nine original cosponsors, two of them were Republicans, seven of them were Democrats, and we are very pleased that this has seen wide and broad support. This legislation is narrowly focused to promote access to affordable mortgage credit without overturning the important consumer protections and sound underwriting required under Dodd-Frank's ``ability to repay'' provisions. Specifically, my bill, H.R. 3211, would provide equal treatment for affiliated title fees compared with unaffiliated title fees. What that means is, for companies that are owned and integrated in, those same requirements and same designations would apply to those who are totally separate and independent companies. It also would clarify the treatment of insurance and taxes held in escrow. Now think about that. We are talking about taxes that no one makes a profit off of, that just literally get sent to the government, being counted in this points and fees definition. That, to me, just seems fundamentally unfair. And only--again, I might add--if they are an affiliated company versus an unaffiliated company. These commonsense changes will promote access to affordable mortgage credit for low and moderate-income families and first-time home buyers by ensuring that safer, properly underwritten mortgages pass the QM test. I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Meeks, along with many others, who have worked tirelessly to help fix this flawed provision currently being implemented. Mr. Speaker, this evening, Congress has the opportunity to help more Americans realize a portion of the American Dream, not by some grandiose law or decree or something that is going to be big, but by simply reforming a burdensome regulation. Homeownership has been a pillar in American life for generations. Tonight, we can reaffirm that pillar and reassert that homeownership can and should be an attainable goal. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 3211 and make the dreams of so many Americans a reality by ensuring that all consumers have greater access to mortgage credit and more choices to credit providers. I reserve the balance of my time.