Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a small business owner, I have seen it. I have lived it. When community banks disappear, families and small businesses lose the local lenders who know their communities and their customers best. Less competition means fewer financing options, higher borrowing costs, and less investment on Main Street, not Wall Street, as some of my colleagues are trying to assert.

This bill lowers unnecessary regulatory costs for community and midsize banks, not those big business center banks on Wall Street and in New York and around the world. In fact, this ends debanking. Mr. Speaker, it restores the flexibility these institutions need to better serve you and your family.

I am also pleased that this bill includes two of my bills: the FDIC Board Accountability Act, which strengthens governance of the FDIC board on behalf of smaller institutions, and the Enhancing Bank Resolution Participation Act, which simply seeks to bring more qualified bidders into failed-bank resolutions when disaster strikes.

Better oversight and broader participation can protect depositors. It is going to promote competition. It reduces further concentration in the banking system, and I would think, Mr. Speaker, we would want that. However, it appears that some on the other side do not.

This package makes it easier to form new banks, strengthens local funding and liquidity, and helps community lenders put more deposits to work financing homes, small businesses, and entrepreneurial dreams.

At a time when Americans are struggling with everyday expenses, Washington should not make credit more expensive through needless red tape.

H.R. 6955, the Main Street Act, will promote competition. It will expand access to capital and help make life more affordable for American families.

I thank the chairman both of the full committee as well as our subcommittee, and I urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the long- awaited 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, and I congratulate Chairman Hill, the ranking member, Chair Flood, and Ranking Member Cleaver for their hard work.

Throughout southwest Michigan, I hear about housing challenges--from a young family's inability to buy their first home to lack of available workforce housing.

Sadly, more than 70 percent of Michigan households do not earn enough to afford a median-priced new home, which costs over $398,000.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is a bipartisan solution to address this problem by lowering prices and improving affordability.

Additionally, this legislation will increase the supply of housing by removing barriers to development and expanding local financing options to help bring more housing to market, which is key to addressing this issue.

I have fought passionately and, frankly, sometimes stubbornly, as this chairman will tell you, for this bipartisan legislation because it helps restore the American Dream by making housing more affordable and available.

Let's send this cost-saving legislation to the President's desk and deliver for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, roughly 16,000 young adults age out of the child welfare system annually, and far too many of them face significant challenges in reaching their full potential.

Tragically, nearly 35 percent, a full third of these young adults, also experience homelessness by age 21.

To address these challenges and to improve outcomes for children and young adults across America, this week the House passed H.R. 7432, the Fostering the Future Act.

This bipartisan legislation equips young adults with the tools to succeed and the skills for in-demand jobs.

By expanding education and training vouchers to include short-term workforce training and apprenticeships, we increase both opportunity and educational support for at-risk members of our society.

Additionally, this bill better aligns Federal housing programs so that we can reduce homelessness among those exiting the foster care system.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the House take this bipartisan action for the first time in more than 25 years to help our young people build a brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and to say thank you to the brave men and women in law enforcement across Michigan and our country.

Every day, officers across America run toward danger on behalf of people they may never meet, tirelessly holding that thin blue line. They protect our neighborhoods, our schools, our families, and our way of life, all at great personal risk.

National Police Week also serves as a solemn reminder that some who answer the call do not return home. This year officers from Michigan State Police, Oakland County, Hamtramck, Hillsdale County, Ecorse, and Melvindale are among those being added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, D.C. Their names, their service, and their sacrifice deserve to be remembered by a grateful nation, as do those heroes from southwest Michigan who have died in the line of duty in past years: Berrien County Deputy Sheriff Elton Stover, Mattawan Police Officer Scot A. Beyerstedt, Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata, and Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Ryan Joseph Proxmire.

In the face of antipolice voices, this must be said clearly here in the people's House to the officers and their families serving today in southwest Michigan and across America: We thank them. To the families of the fallen, we honor them for their loss; we stand with them; and we grieve with them.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the founding of my alma mater, Calvin University.

Today's Calvin University began in 1876 as a small theological school for seven students, and it grew into a Christian liberal arts institution, becoming a 4-year college in 1920 as its academic programs expanded beyond ministry training.

Calvin first welcomed my father, Gerald, in 1939, and when his education was interrupted by World War II and an injury he sustained in a B-24 crash, he then graduated in 1950. Calvin was there for him and many of those returning vets like him.

Now Calvin is not just my alma mater, it is my family's alma mater. My wife went there. I have a son who is currently attending there as well, and it is the place that has shaped our minds. It has deepened our faith, and it has instilled a lifelong commitment to serving God and our community.

Calvin upholds dedication to its neighbor and excellence in education. We have been well-equipped with the tools we need to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating the 150th anniversary of my alma mater, Calvin University.

Go Knights.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Mast for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friend from Ohio knows I deeply respect him, his service to our country, and his consistency, frankly. That is something that we are not seeing from many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and that is to be commended.

We have a different opinion on whether this is legal or not. We all know that the reason we are here is that for nearly half a century, the Iranian regime has terrorized the globe

with acts of cowardly violence through its own forces and proxy militias; namely, Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah, whom they have provided military, political, diplomatic, and monetary aid.

They have killed approximately a thousand Americans and maimed thousands of others, both Americans and Arabs, with roadside bombs and other IEDs. We have seen all the videos online with drones and missiles hurtling into malls, hospitals, and hotels. This has to stop.

During his first term, President Trump imposed a maximum pressure campaign in response to President Obama's lack of action regarding Iran, and that crippled Iran's ability to raise revenues from its oil operations and fund their terror network.

How do I know that, Mr. Speaker? Because as a member of the Financial Services Committee where all of those sanctions originated, I worked on those very sanctions.

However, years later, the Biden administration found those moves too far and harsh on Iran and refused to enforce those sanctions. Sanctions are only as good and useful as their willingness to enforce them.

During this period, Iranian crude production topped 3 million barrels a day, greater by more than a factor of seven during the maximum pressure campaign, allowing the Iranian regime to continue to finance its brutality internationally and domestically.

Congress attempted to reverse course by passing legislation to codify the maximum pressure campaign measures. That is why the House of Representatives passed my bill, the No U.S. Financing for Iran Act, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority during the 118th Congress, to cut off the Iranian regime from the U.S. financial system. My friends who voted for that seem to forget.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to forget that the Iranian regime directed an assassination attempt against the current President of the United States. Whether you like President Trump or not, no sitting President should be allowed to be a target by a foreign country without consequences.

Peace through strength does not mean another open-ended war of the past. Operation Epic Fury is a defensive action using overwhelming force to protect the American people from an imminent and growing threat.

Additionally, it cannot be ignored that Iran was producing conventional drones and ballistic missiles at an alarming rate, until just this past weekend, and to provide a protective layer of defense for its nuclear ambitions and nuclear weapons development.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has clearly defined the mission, the objective, and the timeline. He has notified and briefed Congress on these operations. Simply put, Iran cannot, under any circumstances, possess the capabilities for having nuclear weapons.

The Biden administration's official policy toward Iran summed up in one word: ``Don't.'' That phrase underpinned one of the most ineffective foreign policy agendas in the 21st century. Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution, hoping to score political points by tying the President's hands in the face of danger. It is time that we defend our liberty, our freedom, our neighbors, and this great Nation in the face of Iran's systematic terror.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, housing is vital in every State and in every one of our communities. As of 2025, my home State of Michigan was short more than 141,000 homes, leaving many qualified home buyers on the sidelines.

The Housing for the 21st Century Act will help increase home production, which to date has failed to keep pace with rising demand, leading to more affordability challenges for all Americans. Additionally, today's legislation rightly focuses on modernizing housing policies while increasing affordable housing and accelerating development.

``Affordability'' is the keyword here. I have a professional background in construction, housing development, and home sales. My own family has been involved for over three generations in construction. Now, my cousins have their ready-mix concrete company, and I have our aggregate businesses and home development.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have seen firsthand how government at every level, local, State, and Federal, has put up barrier after barrier to affordable housing. In fact, based on recent analysis, the average home in Michigan costs almost double to build than what the average family can afford.

The Housing for the 21st Century Act would help reduce Federal barriers to building housing by expanding the Federal and local housing systems. Now, the American people need the same level of commitment from their State and local governments, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this well-crafted, bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Foster, on the other side for working on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Mr. Foster's legislation, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act, and urge its immediate adoption.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the 2008 financial crisis, Congress, under the Dodd-Frank Act, created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, known as FSOC, as the chairman was talking about, and tasked them with preventing systemic risk. It was absolutely a worthwhile and needed endeavor.

However, in the early years, the FSOC was given broad-reaching authorities to designate nonbanks as systemically important financial institutions, otherwise known as SIFIs.

During President Trump's first administration, the FSOC moved to an activities-based approach in 2019, which I think was an appropriate response in a post-MetLife court case world where the Federal Government lost because of aggressive overreach. In fact, the judge used the phrase ``excessive and capricious.''

Four years later in 2023, under former President Biden, I believe the FSOC snapped right back into using those faulty analytical frameworks for identifying and dealing with systemic risks.

Just last week, in testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services, Treasury Secretary Bessent emphasized on multiple occasions that the so-called activities-based approach would be preferred.

We agree.

Unfortunately, this back-and-forth guidance has not allowed businesses to plan for the future or make new investments.

Mr. Speaker, why does a SIFI designation actually matter? Many people watching might ask themselves that. Well, as history has taught us, it is a broad-reaching issue that can have some very negative consequences. Excessive regulatory scrutiny and additional costs can change the way nonbanks conduct business.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue applying banklike regulations to nonbanks that have fundamentally different business models and roles within the American economy.

The Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act, on which I am a proud co-lead with Mr. Foster, makes a critical improvement to the current law.

Before a vote to designate a financial company as a SIFI, the FSOC must first consult with the company and then its primary regulator to determine whether alternative actions that could be proposed would be sufficient or insufficient to address risks to U.S. financial stability.

Well, amazingly, Mr. Speaker, those two things didn't exist previously. There was no consultation or discussion with the companies, and there was no consultation with those regulators. That was a flaw. Importantly, the Council may not then vote on a proposed designation unless this determination is made.

Let me remind my colleagues that the SIFI designation process has been flawed from the start. First, it targeted individual companies for designation without any process or notice.

Second, it failed to evaluate whether designation would actually mitigate risks or weigh the costs and benefits to the company, its shareholders, and ultimately the financial system.

Third, the old system failed to give SIFI designees due process or an opportunity to address the perceived risk before designation. As a reminder, the MetLife case took years to settle.

Lastly, it failed to incorporate the views of the primary regulator, who typically would have better insight into a company's financial standing.

Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 3682 adequately addresses these concerns and improves the Council's approach to addressing financial stability risks while creating a stronger, more predictable, and more stable regulatory environment for all.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague for yielding, and I urge my colleagues to support the Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on my bill, H.R. 3190, the BRAVE Burma Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and ask for its immediate consideration.

Burma is a country in profound crisis. In February of 2021, a military-led junta toppled a democratically elected government and plunged the country into civil war. These actions, coupled with the March 2025 earthquake, created a humanitarian crisis that has left tens of thousands of Burmese dead or detained, while approximately 3.6 million people, nearly 6 percent of the population, is now displaced from their homes.

In response to the calls for action from the Burmese diaspora in the United States and in my district, I introduced H.R. 3190, the BRAVE Burma Act.

As I have mentioned many times before, issues involving Burma are near and dear to my heart, as well as to those of many of my Burmese constituents and members at the Battle Creek Burma Center in southwest Michigan. It was there that I first heard the stories about their families and friends in horrific situations in Burma and the lack of mainstream media attention given to these issues.

However, we have an opportunity today to send a message. We have an opportunity today to stand with the current residents of Burma and to remind them that they have not been forgotten. The BRAVE Burma Act is intentional in its action, targeting the heart of the junta's revenues, which it uses to purchase advanced weaponry from abroad.

Specifically, this bill requires the President to impose full blocking sanctions on, first, the state-owned Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise, also known as MOGE. This is the junta's single largest source of foreign revenue, reportedly generating over $1 billion annually.

Second, the bill requires sanctions on the state-owned Myanma Economic Bank, also known as the MEB, which is operated by junta cronies and processes weapons transactions that are contrary to those sanctions.

Third, the bill requires sanctions on any person operating in the jet fuel sector of the Burmese economy. The jet fuel industry in Burma is a key and important target for sanctions because it directly enables the junta's unlawful airstrikes against civilians, places of worship, villages, hospitals, IDP camps, and schools.

Depleting the government's ability to control and profit from aviation fuel imports and distribution will inhibit the junta's ability to sustain violence and commit war crimes using airpower.

Mr. Speaker, the urgency to act has never been greater. Last month, it was reported that Iran had become the sole source of jet fuel to Burma. These secret shipments had not only given Iran much-needed cash and a new market, but it allowed the Burmese military leaders to circumvent Western sanctions.

The deliveries of jet fuel have powered an expansive bombing campaign by the junta that has struck more than 1,000 civilian locations, including Christian churches.

While the military ruling class pledged open and fair elections, the sham process that took place last month should be viewed as a rigged farce and nothing more. Make no mistake, these mass atrocities will not stop until the current regime is crippled.

With the support of the Trump administration, which has continued to turn up the pressure, Congress can shape the future of Burma by leveraging sanctions and financial oversight.

The BRAVE Burma Act will strengthen U.S. efforts to disrupt authoritarian regimes, support democratic movements, and protect vulnerable populations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Betty McCollum, my co-chair of the Congressional Burma Caucus and an original cosponsor of this particular legislation, as well as Representatives Ann Wagner and Seth Moulton, who helped to make this a truly bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker, let me end with this. Since the 2021 coup, nearly 3 million Burmese have been driven from their homes; more than 75,000 people have been killed; and the military has swept up more than 30,000 political prisoners into detention, silencing those who oppose them.

The Burmese military has left a trail of devastation, damaging or destroying at least 343 Christian churches and numerous other religious buildings, according to the Burma Research Institute.

The people of Burma can no longer afford for Congress to sit idly by, and the Trump administration must adopt a unified strategy for Burma, as both the Department of State and the Department of the Treasury have done. It is time for the Department of Homeland Security to come to the same conclusion. Democracy in Burma needs America's help.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that will have a lasting impact.

Madam Speaker, I was delayed on the way to the floor and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 32.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Michigan granting me a little time here. I was not planning on speaking on this. I am actually down here for an amendment, but let me clean it up.

Mr. Speaker, the hot garbage that we are hearing right now from the other side prompts me to address this. I am vice chair of the Financial Services Committee. One of our speakers earlier serves on that committee where we regularly cross swords philosophically about what the role of ESG is. Environmental, social, and governance has been a hot topic, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that.

When he is trying to compare what we are talking about today, regarding what we are dealing with with some of the other retirement plans and publicly traded companies and what the SEC

has been doing, we are not talking apples and oranges. We are talking apples and pinecones. They might both grow on trees, but they are not anything like what the reality is.

He is talking about being a CEO. One of our colleagues was talking about being a CEO of a wind company. Mr. Speaker, that is, by definition, one of those ESG companies. When he is talking about pecuniary questions not being allowed to be asked, that is completely false. Materiality is the watchword.

What we saw under the last administration, by the way, is they blew through that legal definition which was from 1976. Thurgood Marshall is the one who developed the materiality definition by law.

They blew through that and said: Do you know what, these issues are so important to us that we are going to just set the law aside and say: No, you must have an environmental or social or governance lens with which to drive this through.

That has nothing to do with return. It has nothing to do with return. What we have seen is that the activist investors who have gotten involved, who have driven these, who have put these shareholder proposals in place and have put these requests in place, don't care about return. That isn't their goal. Their goal is social change.

What we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is over the years we have seen time and time again the cudgel of government and the cudgel of regulators being used to pound business and investment into what they think is the right place. What it has done is actually cheated those who are dependent upon the return, whether it is a firefighter or a teacher.

By the way, in CalPERS, they have actually extracted themselves from a number of these ESG programs and portfolios.

Why is that?

It is because they were having lawsuits from their own members demanding more return and less concern.

What I would just say is that the Financial Services Committee put together an ESG work group that I had the pleasure of chairing, and we came up with a report.

I will wrap this up.

Mr. Speaker, what that report identified was that what we are seeing is materiality. By the way, material issues are legally required to be disclosed for a publicly traded company or for any of these investment folks. So nobody is trying to hide things. In fact, they are legally required to disclose any of those material issues that may affect stock price.

What we are seeing here is that the gentleman from Illinois and others have argued that all questions regarding the environment or social issues are somehow material.

Mr. Speaker, it simply isn't true. We have to put the investor--that retiree, that person who is desperate for returns so that they can retire--first, not second, behind social issues that bureaucrats have decided is the primary goal.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

This amendment requires the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to submit a report to Congress comparing brokerage window investments in the context of defined contribution plans.

The GAO report will compare investment returns generated through participant-controlled brokerage windows and similar arrangements with the investment returns generated by investments selected and monitored by plan fiduciaries.

What does that mean in plain English? It means basically, do you want to be involved in the decisions surrounding your investments?

Most defined contribution plans, like 401(k) plans allow participants to direct their investments from a menu of options selected by investment fiduciaries, who are the experts. Those are

the professionals who have a legal obligation to maximize return for the investor.

Plan fiduciaries go through an extensive selection and monitoring process, evaluating fees, risks, performance, and how each option compares to available alternatives.

If the plan fiduciary places pooled asset funds, like mutual funds, on the investment menu, the fees are almost always lower, which bolsters the fund's net return, meaning more money in the pockets of the investor.

Brokerage window participants are bypassing the investments selected by the plan's investment fiduciaries and self-selecting investments for their retirement savings.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about whether you want to be involved in your own retirement savings decisions. I do, by the way.

If the participant purchases a mutual fund through a brokerage window, the participant would likely be subject to the highest retail share class fee for that mutual fund. This amendment calls for the GAO to study whether the net returns generated through brokerage windows are comparable to those generated by the investments selected by plan fiduciaries.

We have had, Mr. Speaker, quite a discussion about ESG and the overarching bill. The point that I had been trying to make earlier was that materiality and return should be the watchword. It is the legal requirement, by the way, but we have seen a warping of government and the regulations surrounding it to try to pound these investments into a social circle that some, not all of us, believe is the right direction to go.

Here is what I want to do, Mr. Speaker. I want to maximize return for that firefighter, that teacher, that police officer. I want to make sure that those who traditionally have not had choice in how they are going to invest their retirement savings get some selection in that through approved funds, through fiduciary responsibilities of professionals. This is the right thing to do and the right direction to go.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will close with this. I appreciate where the gentleman is coming from. This has been a long debate regarding some of these issues surrounding what I believe is the core issue. I believe the core issue, Mr. Speaker, is that it is time for us to put retirees first, not second, in investment decisions.

The gentleman was talking about it in ESG funds. I have no problem with the existence of an ESG fund. If someone, for whatever personal reason, decides that they want to invest in a fund that does not have holdings in oil or in pharmaceuticals or something along those lines, that is quite all right, but, Mr. Speaker, it has to be voluntary. It has to be voluntary.

It is okay to invest in that ESG fund, but it is not okay, Mr. Speaker, to force someone into that ESG fund who is then going to suffer for that decision because of a lack of return.

The gentleman cited one study, and I am actually familiar with the study. I can show you five studies for every one that is opposed to this notion that ESG funds are more expensive and have a lower return. At the end of the day, it needs to be about choice for those retirees and their opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from New York allowing me to speak on this. I rise in support of Mr. Lawler's bill, the Remote Access Security Act.

Mr. Speaker, America is at a critical juncture in our technology policy. Do we want to allow our adversaries to weaponize American technology? Do we want them to dominate us militarily and economically in the future? Do we want to create a dystopian world and make everyday Americans subservient to the Chinese Communist Party and their affiliates, or do we want to make a decisive stand to stop some of the most advanced technologies from being used against us in every facet of our lives?

Loopholes currently available in U.S. export control allow the CCP and others to gain a competitive advantage over American companies, especially when it comes to cloud services for technologies that would otherwise not be accessible in physical form. In other words, and in plain English, you can't buy it, so you shouldn't be able to rent it either.

The Remote Access Security Act fixes this problem by giving the administration--all administrations--the authority and flexibility to restrict China's cloud-based access to our most advanced AI technologies.

In November 2025, I convened a subcommittee hearing on export control loopholes which leave American technology vulnerable, and this is where we extensively discussed issues such as this one. H.R. 2683 was reported favorably out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a vote of 51-0. Mr. Speaker, we can't do better than unanimous, but that is showing broad bipartisan agreement on this particular issue.

Today, Congress needs to uphold our responsibility to the American people to close this loophole and stop the CCP and its affiliates from leveraging our technologies for their own military modernization efforts and pursuit of technological dominance. Keeping this coveted technology out of the hands of the CCP and their affiliates will ensure that Silicon Valley, not Xinjiang, remains the center of the AI revolution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I have some prepared remarks, but I will also be speaking from my heart as well because, unfortunately, today I am here to honor the life and legacy of my friend, former sheriff and Fire Chief Dave Haverdink.

Dave was a staple in Allegan County who dedicated his life to serving his community until the moment tragedy struck in the line of duty on December 23. Dave passed away on December 25, Christmas Day.

He was there serving others as there had been an incident on a roadway and, unfortunately, he was struck and killed.

I first got to know Dave while he was serving as a county commissioner and was running for sheriff of Allegan County. While Dave excelled in both of those roles--in fact, he did 8 years, two terms, as the sheriff--his service didn't stop there.

Perhaps what Dave will be most remembered for was his astounding 51 years of service with the Hamilton Fire Department, including 40 of those years when he served as chief of the department.

Prior to coming out to Washington, D.C., I had a chance to go and be with his family at a visitation. I was touched and moved when his wife said to me that she and Dave pray for me and everybody in Washington every single day. It just speaks to the character of this family. At a time when the focus should be on them and supporting them, they still were thinking of others, including me and all of our colleagues here.

While Dave undoubtedly had a tremendous impact on Hamilton and all of Allegan County, his legacy, though, is going to be one as a husband and a father and a grandfather who loved his family deeply. My heart and prayers go out to his wife, Judy; sons, Jeff and Tim; and the entire Haverdink family during this tragic time.

This is a true loss. It is a loss not just for a particular community. It really is a loss for humanity. He is one of the good guys. He is one of those that put service to others above self. He is someone that focused on making sure that others were okay at every turn and didn't think about himself.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the memory, life, and legacy of Hamilton Fire Chief Dave Haverdink with a moment of silence.

May my friend rest well. Job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate William ``Bill'' Long on his retirement from MEMA, The Vehicle Suppliers Association.

As the Representative for Michigan's Fourth Congressional District, home to many of those hardworking MEMA members, I can attest to the lasting impact of Bill's leadership as president and CEO.

Bill Long has spent more than 40 years in the automotive and parts industry. Prior to joining MEMA in 2012, he held executive roles at Echlin Inc., Dana Incorporated, and Proliance International.

Appointed CEO in 2019, Bill helped redefine MEMA's mission: uniting vehicle aftermarket and original equipment suppliers, and positioning the association as a strong, unified voice during a period of major industrial transformation.

Bill's commitment and collaboration are evident in the partnerships he has built with automakers, technology leaders, research institutions, and government agencies and representatives.

Over the years, Bill has served on numerous boards and earned widespread recognition. He remains a respected figure in motorsports, including leadership roles with NASCAR and IndyCar. He currently serves on the boards of the Automotive Hall of Fame and the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring his distinguished career. I wish him the very best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Incentivizing New Ventures and Economic Strength Through Capital Formation, the INVEST Act, and ask for its immediate passage.

Mr. Chair, this package of bills before the House today is the culmination, as the Chair was saying, of literally a decade's worth of work, bipartisan work, I might add. The time has ripened and the time has come for us to pass all of these.

H.R. 3383 expands access to capital for small businesses, increases investor opportunities for all, and strengthens our public markets.

Last year, as part of the committee's capital formation agenda, we heard from everyday Americans who, despite the odds, succeeded in achieving their dreams.

Today's bill reflects their priorities and the priorities of millions of Americans who are looking for financial security and a better future. I want to take a minute to highlight my bill which is included in this package.

The Improving Disclosure for Investors Act directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate rules with respect to electronic delivery of certain required disclosures to investors.

Here is what that means: If you have an email, you are able to receive these documents electronically. You are not forced, but you are able to get it. If you don't have an email, by definition you don't even qualify. You will not get these.

By the way, I will note, Mr. Chairman, that the standard for the Social Security Administration is through electronic communications.

This bipartisan bill is straightforward. It provides ample time for transition, notices to consumers, and an ability for anyone to opt out for any reason if they choose to do so.

I was proud to work with the ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), to make sure that consumer protection, especially for seniors, Mr. Chairman, was the foundation of this bill.

There are no poison pills in here, Mr. Chairman. There are no surprises in this. We are champions for American competitiveness, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''