Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chair, this is sort of a continuation of my friend Mr. Hill's amendment and Mr. Barr's, and other amendments that we have talked about today, which is really about whether we are going to allow the largest state funder of terrorism to continue to have access to hard dollars and continue to have access to the capital that is funding groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestine Islamic Jihad.

Mr. Chair, the deadly terror attacks of October 7 made one thing abundantly clear: The United States cannot continue to allow the Iranian regime access to funding that, in turn, could be used against our allies and even American citizens.

I am pleased to offer this amendment today, and I hope it will receive bipartisan support because a very similar amendment, Mr. Chair, received a voice vote in 2016 right along these lines.

Last month's barbaric attack against our friends and allies in Israel was a powerful reminder of the dangers posed by Hamas and others.

By the way, Hamas, receives 93 percent of their total funding from Tehran. As we mentioned, Tehran and Iran, being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, must be cut off from their ability to wage hostilities abroad.

As far-reaching as our Iranian sanctions are, it may surprise some of my colleagues that we have not actually closed all the financing loopholes. The administration still enjoys significant discretion to permit trade and financial services with these bad actors even if it has nothing to do with humanitarian purposes. My amendment would change this.

Under Executive Order No. 13902, the Trump administration made the construction, mining, manufacturing, and textile sectors of the Iranian economy subject to U.S. sanctions, in addition to sanctions in place, many going back to the 2012 NDAA. The Treasury Department later added the financial sector to this group, blacklisting 18 Iranian banks in October 2020. At the same time, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control, also known as OFAC, retains broad discretion to license transactions with sanctioned Iranians.

Under the Obama administration's nuclear deal, for example, Treasury licensed aircraft sales to Iran Air, which had previously been sanctioned for providing support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, also known as the IRGC, and to the Defense Ministry.

An amendment to the FSGG appropriations bill to prohibit these licenses was adopted by the House in 2016 by voice vote.

We must not let licenses undermine sanctions under these executive orders, which is why my amendment would prohibit them if they allow Iran to use the U.S. financial system. It is that simple.

The attack on Israel has underscored how we cannot become complacent when it comes to blocking Iran from the goods, technology, and hard currency it needs to fund terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and many others.

In addition to being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran has been designated by Treasury as a jurisdiction of primary laundering concern.

Mr. Hill just referenced in his amendment that Treasury does have the ability to put these jurisdictions on money laundering, but they have rescinded that, Mr. Chair. They allow these exemptions.

That is why Mr. Hill's amendment, my amendment, and other amendments are trying to narrow that down and tighten that down. Clearly, we should shield our financial institutions from contact with the country to the fullest extent possible.

Now, let me address potential objections. Some might ask about humanitarian aid under this measure.

My amendment does nothing--let me repeat, nothing--to affect existing exemptions for agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices. These exemptions have long been codified into our laws, and this amendment does not change that. This is explicit in the text of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, you may have heard and seen those media reports about phantom false billing that might be happening or black market deals where those goods and services are delivered and being misused and even sold on the black market for that cash. That is another issue, and we need to address that, but that is not what we are getting at here in this one.

Others might ask whether this amendment could limit Treasury's ability to license transactions as future ransom for hostages, for example, or even as part of a new nuclear deal.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 530, on Agreeing to the Amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Westerman

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Van Raalte Farmhouse. The Van Raalte Farmhouse has been a staple of our West Michigan community for generations, and we thank the City of Holland for preserving not only this site but the legacy of the Van Raalte family.

The farmland was purchased by the founder of Holland, Reverend Albertus Van Raalte, in 1847. The Reverend split the land between two of his children, Albertus and Benjamin, as a gift for their valiant service during the Civil War. Benjamin, a soldier in the Union Army who served in Michigan's 25th Infantry, purchased his brother's half of the land and constructed a beautiful neoclassical farmhouse on the property in the early 1870s. Benjamin cultivated the land for the remainder of his life, producing peaches and peony flowers. The farm became known as ``The Maples'' due to the large sugar maples grown on the property.

The farm stayed in the family for multiple generations until it was sold in the 1980s to the city of Holland, Michigan. Holland helped transform the farmhouse and its land into a beautiful park. In 1989, Van Raalte Farmhouse was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Today, community members continue to enjoy hikes and picnics as well as cross-country skiing and sledding in the winter at the park.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in commemorating 150 years of history at the Van Raalte Farmhouse as the Van Raalte family's story and the farmhouse's beauty continue to inspire the people of Michigan's Fourth District.

Mr. Speaker, I missed Boebert Amendment No. 50. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 481.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The short-term stop-gap government funding measure we are debating here today not only keeps our government open, which is very important, it responsibly reduces spending, makes critical reforms to secure the border, and, importantly, contains the text of my bipartisan bill to establish a fiscal debt commission.

The Fiscal Commission Act of 2023 now included in this bill will create a commission that proposes recommendations to finally tackle our Nation's unsustainable debt trajectory in the medium and the long term.

Furthermore, both Chambers of Congress will be required, Madam Chair, to take a vote on the commission's proposal.

With this key provision, Congress can no longer kick the can down the road on the rapidly growing threat of our national debt.

Given the bipartisan support of this legislation upon introduction, it is clear that both Republicans and Democrats understand that time is running out.

The Federal Government is already spending more on interest on the national debt than it spends on children--something that my colleagues I know are very concerned about because they talk about it. The interest is already nearly more than what we spend on defense, and we are rapidly approaching a point where interest on the debt will be more than Social Security and Medicare.

In building the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023, we learned from past commission mistakes and gave this legislation real teeth, practicality, urgency, and clear goals for Congress to come face-to-face with this massive challenge.

Specifically, the commission is made up of 16 commissioners that include 12 Members of Congress, as well as 4 private-sector experts that are selected by leaders of both the House and the Senate.

The commission is tasked with identifying policies to improve our fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve a sustainable debt- to-GDP ratio in the long term.

Importantly, it will put forward solutions to ensure the solvency of our 20-plus trust funds for decades to come. The commission will also propose recommendations designed to balance the budget at the earliest reasonable date, including at minimum stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio at or below 100 percent within 10 years--all while addressing growth of direct spending and the gap between revenues and expenditures.

The proposal will then come to Congress in the days shortly after the 2024 election where the House and Senate must take an up-or-down vote on the recommendations without amendment and without delay.

I am proud to say that joining me in the introduction of the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023 there were an even number of Republicans and Democrats.

With this inclusion in the continuing resolution before us today, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep our government open this week and secure our Nation's fiscal future for generations to come.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to protect farmers, the agricultural business, and small businesses throughout west Michigan, and, frankly, across America from a costly new fee.

Along with a host of additional fee increases for H-2A and H-2B visas, the Biden administration has proposed a brand-new $600 per- petition fee, Mr. Chair, on employers seeking visas for temporary workers.

This impacts a wide range of guest worker categories, such as H-2A and H-2B. H-2As, of course, are used for temporary agricultural work, and H-2Bs are usually used in the tourism industry. Frankly, I know my friend from Texas has been very involved in the H-2B and H-2A space. We have had this discussion before.

Furthermore, the administration--not me, not Republicans--but the Biden administration itself is dubbing this increase the ``asylum program fee.'' This $600 fee will be coming directly out of the pockets of farmers and small businesses and funneled to the asylum process backlog caused by this administration's failed border policies.

In April of this year, six Republicans and six Democrats from Michigan--nearly our entire delegation--joined together to oppose this increase in a bipartisan letter to Secretary Mayorkas requesting that he reconsider reimplementing this fee and other significant fee increases that we view as harmful.

Making ends meet in the face of soaring prices and record inflation is hard enough. The Federal Government should not be inventing additional costs that raise prices for consumers and make it harder for family farms and small businesses to keep their doors open.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I wish the gentleman hadn't necessarily yielded back his time because I would have loved to have a little bit of a colloquy on this.

I fully understand the USCIS is a fee-based institution. It takes in those fees.

In addition to the $600 per petition fee, they also had proposed a tripling of a fee for the named employee. If you are putting in--and the gentleman knows this issue very well. If you have a particular person that you are requesting to come into the country, this administration tripled that fee. If you have an unnamed person for an H-2A or an H-2B, they doubled that fee increase.

I had an amendment that was going to attempt to address those two issues, as well. The Rules Committee ruled that nongermane. We can have that discussion outside of that, but they did rule this particular proposal and this amendment as germane, as relevant to this discussion.

While we have seen a fee already that is in place be increased, we are not able to do that, but this is a brand-new fee that the administration, again, has labeled the ``asylum program fee.''

We all know that there are serious issues at the southern border, and it is something the gentleman has talked about pretty extensively. I just don't see how penalizing small businesses and people who are using the system legally and increasing their costs which are going to be passed along to the general public, how that makes sense in this case.

I talked to a farmer back in southwest Michigan who regularly employs about 100 seasonal temporary workers. It doesn't take a math genius to figure out 100 H-2A visas with a $600 fee, that is $60,000 in additional fees that this farmer is going to have to put up front before they have done the harvest, before they have actually reaped any of the benefit of the work.

That is why I believe this is so crucially important to U.S. agriculture.

While I understand the gentleman may oppose this particular amendment as it is sitting, I hope he wouldn't oppose the spirit of this. I would love to work with him on this because I do believe we need to address this issue.

Mr. Chair, I again urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I believe it is a commonsense amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate both Allan and Kim Overhiser for their incredible service to Allegan County and on their induction to the prestigious Michigan Farmers Hall of Fame. It is an honor to express my gratitude for their dedication and commitment to our community and Southwest Michigan.

Mr. Allan Overhiser was raised on the Overhiser farm and decided to follow in his family's fruit growing tradition. When his father retired, Allan and Kim Overhiser took over the business and became the fifth generation of family farmers. Under their combined leadership, the farm has expanded to 325 acres and includes more than 30,000 fruit trees. Allan and Kim have brought on their son, Alex, to continue managing the family's farming operations.

Coinciding with his agricultural and business leadership, Allan has also diligently served his community. Allan spent 16 years as the Casco Township Clerk from 1988 to 2004 and has continued his service as the Township Supervisor since he was first elected in 2004. On Allan's watch, his constituents have directly benefitted from the development of a 20-acre park overlooking Lake Michigan, the creation of the South Haven Area Water and Sewer Authority, and the establishment of the South Haven Area Emergency Services Authority. He is a recipient of the Michigan Horticultural Society Distinguished Service Award.

In addition to helping run their family farm, Kim Overhiser has also distinguished herself as a community leader. She is a founding member of the Michigan Agritourism Association, a board member for the Lakeshore Harvest Country Association, a Cub Scout leader, and as a strong supporter of Fennville High School Athletics and Bands. Kim's passion for service has helped make Southwest Michigan an even better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for joining me to congratulate Allan and Kim Overhiser on their well-deserved Hall of Fame induction and for their years of dedicated service to Allegan County and Michigan's 4th Congressional District.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to better secure our advanced air mobility future.

The Advanced Air Mobility Infrastructure Pilot Program that is currently in law provides grants to airport sponsors, transit agencies, or other government subdivisions to develop comprehensive plans to advanced air mobility infrastructure.

Under current law, the Secretary of Transportation is required to prioritize awarding grants to eligible recipients that collaborate, with a few criteria. Here are those criteria: that they are a commercial advanced air mobility entity, that they are an institution of higher education, that they are a research institute, or that they are some other relevant stakeholder in this process.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is very simple. It adds the Department of Defense and the National Guard to this list of eligible recipients. There are many qualified airports throughout the Nation that already have a DOD or National Guard presence that are ready to innovate and help develop drone and related infrastructure.

This amendment is a small way to help ensure DOD and the National Guard have a voice in this important future-looking endeavor, especially given that our men and women in uniform likely have expertise in this area.

Not only will they help develop this technology with their expertise, but they will literally be on the front lines of utilizing this technology.

Mr. Chair, I am glad that the underlying legislation takes steps to extend this pilot program, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to add the Department of Defense and the National Guard to those lists of entities that are eligible.

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

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. Chairman, I was trying to get the gentleman's attention to see if he would yield for a question about his opposition.

So would the gentleman care to answer a question?

It is currently my time. I guess my question to the gentleman is--this is very short--it says--literally it is a sentence-- ``in paragraph 4(b) by inserting `the Department of Defense and the National Guard' before `or'''--I don't see anything in there in my amendment that will bias the Secretary of Transportation to only utilize fields that have a DOD or National Guard presence. In fact, the opposite could be argued, that those fields, because they have a DOD or a National Guard presence, would somehow be excluded from the gentleman's pilot program.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to him very briefly if he cares to answer what his opposition is.

He doesn't care to address that, which indicates to me that he is either unsure or doesn't know or that I might be right in that.

Anyway, I still do believe that if we are having a pilot program then it ought to be open to more of our fields and not fewer of those fields.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I, again, appeal to my colleagues. I believe this is a commonsense amendment to a pilot program.

I can assure the gentleman that, yes, if my amendment is adopted on this then I will also be voting against an amendment that would end the underlying pilot program. I think he will have many others of us doing the exact same thing. So the gentleman can help himself, Mr. Chair, if he would be willing to accept my amendment, but that is up to those in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I appeal for approval of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to require the Secretary of Energy to disclose certain stakeholder meetings with any entity that has: one, ties to the People's Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party; two, has produced studies regarding or has advocated for policies to limit, restrict, or ban the use of any type of energy; and, three, has applied for or received Federal funds.

We have recently seen concerning examples of anti-energy, China- connected entities receiving not just elevated access to the White House and Federal agencies but granting of funds, as well. Literally, we have been using U.S. taxpayer dollars to help fund them.

I introduced this amendment because the Biden administration has not been transparent about who it has been meeting with, and frankly, I believe this administration has not been honest with the American people about its desire to ban gas stoves.

In February of this year, it was widely reported that a government watchdog group obtained information through the Freedom of Information Act revealing a private meeting between the Secretary of Energy and a group that would be covered by this amendment. In particular, this group has been on the forefront of the effort to ban gas stoves.

Unsurprisingly, when I sent a letter to Secretary Granholm in February, inquiring whether she was aware of this group's ties to China and the extent of their influence on the Department, I received a letter back that was completely ignoring my questions and concerns.

I have to give you a little bit of perspective, Mr. Chairman. My family has been involved in construction for over three generations, and I fully understand the needs that people have at various levels in their homes and their businesses.

I mean, we are talking about gas stoves today. Don't get me wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with electric stoves. That oftentimes fits very nicely--same thing with electric base heat or water heaters, et cetera.

There are certain regions of the country, like in Michigan and the upper Midwest, where we are very dependent on propane and natural gas.

We don't have the electric grid to support an expansion of that.

I know the other side will say that nobody is going to pull your stove out of your house--yet. Nobody is doing anything other than just stoves--yet.

We know that places like California, New York, and even in Michigan, the city of Ann Arbor, have gone in and literally banned the addition of and use of gas stoves. They are looking to expand that. They have talked about that.

The real rub here, Mr. Chairman, is that we have a major problem with questionable groups with established connections to China. They have those established connections, but we are not sure what their unanswered intentions might be.

They are succeeding in influencing policy to limit affordable appliance options for Americans. When President Biden or Senate Majority Leader Schumer are telling the American people that no one is going after their stoves, they may be technically correct today, Mr. Chairman. In the broader picture, we know that that may be coming.

I have to say that it is one thing for elected officials to be going after a particular appliance or source of energy, but we have a real problem when Washington bureaucrats, unelected bureaucrats, aren't being honest about their end goal, and they are the ones making the rules and regulations.

A ban on gas stoves is going to cost the taxpayers. It is going to cost hardworking, honest Americans more when they are already in an inflationary heightened situation.

That is why I wanted to bring this amendment. I appreciate the author's acceptance of this and understanding of where we are trying to go with this.

At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simply to bring an added dose of transparency, expose connections to the CCP, which I truly, honestly believe that both sides of the aisle have concerns about the tentacles of the CCP and the Chinese Government and the influence that it has gained here in the United States.

That is why, on the Financial Services Committee that I serve on, we have done CFIUS reviews, which is making sure that it is property and technology and other things that we are protecting from our adversaries like China.

Why would we hand over the keys to this particular kingdom? I don't understand.

We need to let the American people know who is truly influencing our government and that exposure is there.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is near and dear to me, having spent virtually my entire legislative career on the Capital Markets Subcommittee, including a time as the chair and ranking member, and this is something that many of us have been working on for a long time.

Thanks also to Chairman McHenry for setting out an ambitious agenda to strengthen and expand access to our capital markets.

The legislation being considered here today, both the previous bill, H.R. 835, and my bill, H.R. 1579, make good on this promise while increasing opportunity for small businesses, as well as investors in Michigan's Fourth Congressional District and across America.

Under Gary Gensler, the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to blow past their longstanding three-part mission to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to facilitate capital formation with a number of other things that are well beyond that. We are here today to refocus the SEC on its core mission to help more Americans participate in our capital markets.

During our bipartisan effort, we have heard uplifting stories from Americans who inspire a new generation of entrepreneurs.

Look, we all know some very hardworking, middle-income folks who know how to manage their money and manage their money well. Frankly, we probably all also know stories of wealthy people who, frankly, don't have a clue financially, and I would never turn over our money to them to manage or to invest.

So let's talk about a couple of those people in the first category. I start, first, with a woman named Omi Bell. Omi Bell founded Black Girl Ventures, an organization focused on providing women of color with access to community networks, capital, and capacity building to develop and grow their businesses. Omi does that right here in Washington, D.C.

Omi testified before our Subcommittee on Capital Markets that her mother invested $10,000 of her own retirement to support Omi's first business venture. Yet her mom was not considered an accredited investor and, despite her desire to support her daughter's ambitions, she could have been disallowed from investing in that.

We also heard testimony from David Olivencia. He is the CEO and cofounder of Angeles Investors, who, while earning his MBA from Notre Dame, learned about startups and how early-stage investments could lead to outsized returns.

Unfortunately for David, as he told his story, he said he did not qualify as an accredited investor because his immigrant family did not have wealth that he could inherit.

That is a horrible way, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether someone should or can invest in a dream and in something that they know about. I can tell you this: Both Omi and David are all too common in the investment world. While innovators often turn to their local communities for support, they often lack the ability to reach those investors, those truly accredited investors, who can make a huge impact.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, accredited investors are allowed to purchase securities that have not been registered with the SEC. These types of offerings carry more risk than public offerings. In theory, individuals with enough financial sophistication or net worth--again, those are two different things--can bear the potential losses that may be associated with these types of securities.

My bill, the Accredited Investor Definition Review Act, would require the SEC to incorporate ``certifications, designations, or credentials that further the purpose of accredited investor definition.''

The bill would expand investment opportunities for knowledgeable investors and provide small business job creators with additional sources of funding.

The current definition the SEC uses to identify accredited investors is outdated and based solely and wrongly on wealth and net income. You shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be an accredited investor.

The ability to participate in a private offering should not be limited to individuals that pass some sort of Federal Government assets test. Instead, participation should be expanded to include all individuals that can demonstrate they have sufficient understanding of the offering.

Mr. Speaker, my legislation is about leveling the playing field. Do you see the theme, by the way? The theme from the Republicans and, I believe, many on the other side is this: We want to make sure that we allow all Americans to participate in our economic system.

So whether it is in Kalamazoo or Portage, whether it is in Benton Harbor or St. Joe, or Battle Creek or in Springfield, investors should be able to support small business startups in their local community across southwest Michigan and around the Nation.

I look forward to continued bipartisan support for this issue. I thank the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and the ranking member, Mr. Sherman, as well as Representative Lawler, for their work. I look forward to getting this across the finish line and helping the American people and American small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, but to honor the life of a friend, retired United States Coast Guard Commander, Mike Smith.

Mike is fondly remembered by many as the director of the annual Coast Guard Festival in Grand Haven, Michigan, also known as Coast Guard City USA, a cherished event where our west Michigan community comes together to celebrate the Coast Guard's service

and sacrifice on the lakeshore and across the country.

Mike lived a life of service, both in the Coast Guard and outside of it. In fact, in 2016, he received the Department of Defense's annual Spirit of Hope Award, an honor that is presented to individuals who embody Bob Hope's core values of serving and supporting our military members. He was so proud of that he actually put it on his own challenge coin.

Mike exemplified the bold character of the Coast Guard and its motto, ``Semper Paratus,'' always prepared, and his influential impact will be forever felt.

Mike is survived by his wife, Cathy, and their six children: Maxwell, Mollie, Moira, Maggie, Matteson, and McHale.

I, and so many others, remember Mike for his service, but we cherish his friendship and his contribution to the Grand Haven community, to the U.S. Coast Guard, and to our Nation.

Rest well, my friend. Rest well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Lieutenant Ethan Quillen.

On Wednesday, February 22, volunteer firefighter Ethan Quillen responded to a downed power line call during a severe ice storm that swept through his hometown of Paw Paw, Michigan.

He acted like so many other volunteer firemen around the country. His incredible life of service was tragically ended in the line of duty when a falling tree struck a high voltage power line that he was standing under.

Ethan had volunteered at the fire department since 2019, eventually working his way up to lieutenant. He was a father, a husband, a Marine Corps veteran, and a hero, a hero who for the well-being of his fellow Americans and Paw Paw neighbors consistently put service over self while asking for nothing in return.

On behalf of the people of Paw Paw, Michigan, the Fourth Congressional District, the State of Michigan, and our Nation, I recognize and thank Ethan for his service and his sacrifice and pray for blessings and peace for his family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McHenry for yielding me time this afternoon.

I rise today in support of the Credit Union Board Modernization Act and ask for its immediate passage.

Credit unions can play an important role in many of our local communities, often working with families and small business owners to gain access to credit.

H.R. 582 will go a long way to providing reasonable regulatory relief for credit unions, especially in Michigan's Fourth Congressional District and across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, if signed into law, these commonsense, reasonable reforms will allow federally chartered credit unions in good standing in Michigan and across the country the same reasonable governance practices afforded to those at the State level.

Currently, all federally chartered credit union boards must meet at least once month. This one-size-fits-all requirement often negatively impacts smaller rural credit unions, which ultimately impacts, frankly, which members are willing to even serve on those boards and therefore the services that they can and will be able to provide to their local community.

The Credit Union Board Modernization Act rightly modernizes how often federally chartered credit union boards must meet, which the National Credit Union Administration currently mandates to be monthly. Nothing in this legislation prevents a credit union from meeting more than six times a year. It just gives them the flexibility and they are able to then decide. That is the idea of a credit union; member-driven, they will decide.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas) for working with Republicans, and specifically me, this last Congress to implement these reasonable safeguards.

I do want to note, specifically, this legislation does not apply to new credit unions or those credit unions with low exam ratings, as the chair had indicated. Highly rated credit unions with high management ratings must hold at least six meetings annually, with at least one meeting held during each fiscal quarter.

Alternatively, these lower-rated credit unions must continue to meet once a month, and there will be direction on that, as the chair has outlined.

I want to be clear. This bill does not give credit unions an advantage over their community bank counterparts but brings parity to an outdated process.

Again, I thank Congressman Vargas for his commitment to make this a bipartisan effort. I look forward to seeing these reforms, which will strengthen local economies across the Nation, enacted into law.

Mr. Chair, I was unreasonably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 64.