J. Hill

Mr. HILL of Arkansas

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 965) to amend section 3(b)(4) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exclude certain disability benefits from income for the purposes of determining eligibility for the supported housing program under section 8(o)(19), and for other purposes.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. 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 material on this bill.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 965, the Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act introduced by my colleague on the Financial Services Committee, Congressman Brad Sherman of California. Much like the bill that we just considered a few minutes ago from our friend from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz), I want to start out by commending our colleague from California for his work on this related issue that once again speaks to the fairness in HUD programs on behalf of our Nation's veterans. The Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing, or HUD-VASH, program was created back in 1992. The purpose was to assist homeless veterans with psychiatric and substance abuse disorders. The VASH program is an important Federal tool that provides housing assistance and supportive services for low-income veterans experiencing homelessness. Of course, it might seem redundant to some that a program to help homeless veterans would be geared towards those who are low- income, but sometimes with HUD nothing is ever simple. Much like how HUD treats service-connected disability compensation of veterans as income in its CDBG program, HUD treats any disability benefits a veteran receives under chapter 11 or chapter 15 of title 38 of the U.S. Code as income under HUD-VASH. A predictable result is some disabled homeless veterans are blocked from using a program to help all homeless veterans because HUD has decided that those low-income veterans that are disabled are too wealthy to qualify. Sound familiar? This is exactly the debate we had a few minutes ago. Mr. Speaker, someone always has to explain these government bureaucratic messes to me because they never make any common sense. The reform we are talking about today offered by Mr. Sherman fixes this problem. It reforms the HUD income calculation used in the HUD- VASH program to ensure that the disability payments of a low-income veteran do not exclude them from accessing this housing support. The bill goes on to say that HUD needs to adopt the same income calculation standard for any future veteran housing program it might create using HUD-owned property. I applaud my colleague for calling attention to this problem and for his bipartisan work to find a solution. While this may seem like an easy fix, this is Washington. There are no easy fixes, and HUD has consistently placed bureaucratic obstacles in the way of program efficiency time and time again. In fact, when Representative Sherman brought this up last year to the Secretary of HUD, he got the same answer that Representative De La Cruz got on her veterans CDBG income question: Hey, that is Congress' job to fix it, not HUD's. Fix it, indeed we will. The approach the gentleman has taken in crafting this bill is a good one. It is one that will make a big difference in the HUD-VASH program, as well as: How about making a difference for the veterans who are eligible to use it? That is why we are on this House floor. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Sherman for his hard work to honor the promises that we have made to our veterans. I urge bipartisan support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz), who has done so much to advance these reforms in HUD and our committee. We are grateful for her leadership.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank Mr. Sherman for his good work on this and his partnership with Ms. De La Cruz of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also express my deep empathy and support of Representative Sherman, Representative Chu, Representative Kim, and others in the L.A. basin who are coping with the horrendous results and tragedy connected with the fires at Pacific Palisades and elsewhere where some 45,000 California homes were destroyed in just the blink of an eye and lives lost. I thank Mr. Sherman for his focus on housing the least fortunate, our veterans, but also I know that he is concerned about what is going to happen in the months ahead as southern California recovers. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, we will have a bipartisan roundtable tomorrow in the House Financial Services Committee where Members on both sides of the aisle will talk with experts about how best to improve resilience and think through recovery for southern California. I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan work on H.R. 965. I urge a ``yes'' vote on both sides of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 224 as put forward by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz). She has heard strong support on a bipartisan basis on both sides of the aisle from our friends, Mr. Vargas and Mr. Sherman in the minority, and Mr. Nunn in the majority. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 224) to amend section 102(a)(20) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to require the exclusion of service- connected disability compensation when determining whether a person is a person of low and moderate income, a person of low income, or a person of moderate income, and for other purposes.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), the lead sponsor who has crafted this constructive bill.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that you note the comment made by Mr. Meuser on the subject of 20 employees or $5 million. The definition of this bill says that a small business that has to report, these 32-plus million businesses that we are talking about, the definition is that they have fewer than 20 employees and fewer than $5 million. My friend from California rightfully said that the concern of the Federal Government is about illicit finance through the use of shell companies incorporated in one of our States. Let that sink in for everybody listening to this debate: $5 million in revenues, 20 employees. Mr. Speaker, for decades, before I came to Congress a few years ago, I helped start businesses and helped finance businesses, all of which would dream to have $5 million in annual revenues and 20 employees. Think about your best friend who has an HVAC contracting company to help people with their air-conditioning and heating. He works there. His son works for him. They have a couple of million dollars in revenue. It is his whole livelihood. He loves it. He is the best at what he does, but in this world, in this House, he is accused of being a shell company and is being burdened by this rule. Once again, so many times the government goes after the bad guy and sweeps up everybody. That is why Mr. Nunn has come to this floor to say that we need another year to think about this. I would certainly urge the incoming administration to rethink the whole process because Mr. Vargas is right: It is an important thing to do, to try to capture illicit finance, but it is another thing in the world to sweep up every American trying to live the American Dream with their own small business. We want people who want $5 million in revenue and have 20 employees. What a joy. We are united on this today, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is good for the American people to see, too, that we care about what is happening. Occasionally, we get it wrong in government, and we work hard to try to rectify it. That is what Zach Nunn of Iowa is fighting for small businesses to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos), the committee whip.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. 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 material on this bill.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 975, the Credit Union Board Modernization Act. I applaud my Committee on Financial Services colleagues, Representatives Vargas and Huizenga, for introducing it. This bipartisan bill will help focus credit unions' time and resources where it really matters, which is serving their members. Federal credit unions are governed by boards of directors who are currently required by law, Mr. Speaker, to meet at least once a month. This outdated requirement prevents credit unions from attracting talented volunteers and professionals to a credit union's board due to the time commitment of a monthly board meeting. Under H.R. 975, certain well-functioning credit unions are provided with the option to meet at least six times annually with at least one meeting held during each fiscal quarter of the year. This crucial change frees up the time and resources used for meetings to put toward the critical mission of providing financial services to their credit union members. Importantly, this bill has guardrails to ensure the safety and soundness of our financial system. Only credit unions with a CAMELS composite rating of a one or two will be permitted to meet at this less frequent rate. All credit unions, just like commercial banks, are subject to a supervisory rating scale. It is called the CAMELS rating. A credit union is assessed at each of the six categories under that acronym, and they are assigned a composite rating on a scale of one, the best, to five, the worst, based on: capital adequacy, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk, hence the acronym CAMELS. Therefore, this bill provides an incentive to achieve the strongest supervisory rating so that a credit union might access the flexibility offered by this bill. Furthermore, by reducing the mandated number of board meetings for federally chartered credit unions, this legislation would promote parity between Federal and State-chartered credit unions as 17 States currently allow for meetings less frequently than monthly. As I say, fewer mandated board meetings are especially helpful for rural credit unions who struggle to attract talent to their boards and also operate with significant regulatory burden and sometimes long travel. Of course, nothing in this legislation prevents credit union boards from meeting more frequently if they determine that is necessary. Credit unions play an essential role in our communities across this country, and H.R. 975 will ensure that they are able to operate more efficiently. I thank the gentleman from California's 52nd District, Mr. Vargas, for introducing this important bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. 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 material on this bill.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. Vargas) for his remarks, but I will point out to him that here on this House floor today, Mr. Speaker, on both sides of the aisle, we are talking about how to improve oversight through the multilateral process against some countries such as China who don't always have the best interests at heart, both in the trade market and in economic affairs in the country. I believe that our recently elected, recently inaugurated President absolutely knows how to help hold them accountable. These are the exact kind of tools that will strengthen the hand of our new Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as he thinks about going to multilateral meetings. These will strengthen the hand of our hopefully soon-to-be- confirmed colleague at the United Nations. We are here on the House floor today to talk about how we can strengthen American leadership across the globe. One way to do that is to counter China's attempt to manipulate world's rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), to describe its benefit.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos), one of the newest members on the House Financial Services Committee, the committee whip.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I thank Mr. Meuser for his hard work on this bill. To friends on both sides of the aisle, these are both significant reform efforts in the IMF to improve transparency and particularly for what we have seen over the years as a lack of being willing to play by the multilateral rules that all large developed economies have been doing. Therefore, I really support these bills. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 692, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. 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 material on this bill.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 692) to require the United States Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund to advocate for increased transparency with respect to exchange rate policies of the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), the bill's sponsor and author.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 386) to require the United States Governor of, and the United States Executive Director at, the International Monetary Fund to oppose an increase in the weight of the Chinese renminbi in the Special Drawing Rights basket of the Fund, and for other purposes.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will echo the comments of my friend from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) about the fact that China is not a full market economy. It has not met its obligations to act as a good sovereign on settling creditor concerns. The belt and road policies of China have deeply indebted so many global south nations in such a way that the IMF does not have a full picture of their financial status in order to have access to the IMF's lending authorities. This is just another way, Mr. Speaker, for this House to, I think, make better policy and that we ask the IMF to have full transparency on what is happening in China and their participation with the Fund. One way to do that is to accomplish the worthy objectives here in H.R. 386. I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.