Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my hometown, the city of Zeeland, on its 175th anniversary.

Throughout the first week of October, friends and residents of this small but vibrant city in west Michigan gathered together to celebrate and share memories of the community's storied history.

The village of Zeeland was established in 1847 when nearly 500 Dutch citizens, led by James Van de Luyster, sailed from Zeeland in the Netherlands to pursue religious freedom and self-rule. I will note that my own family came in the second wave that same year of 1847 and has proudly been ensconced in the city of Zeeland since then.

After settling on 16,000 acres of land, one of the first buildings established was a church. Here, Reverend Cornelius van der Meulen became the first spiritual leader and pastor to the Zeeland colonists, offering hope and courage as the settlers cleared thick forests and tackled this new land.

As the center of the community, the church served as a place of worship on Sundays as well as a school on the weekdays, with instruction provided in both English and in Dutch.

A burgeoning manufacturing and agriculture sector, as well as a post office helped Zeeland to grow, leading to incorporation as a city in 1907. Now, the 1900s were a time of growth in Zeeland. In fact, my own father served over 30 years on the city council from the late 1960s up until the 1990s.

While the city has grown, one thing has remained a constant: The innovative, entrepreneurial, close-knit, and welcoming community continues to make Zeeland a special place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, let us join in recognizing all former and current residents of the city of Zeeland as they celebrate their 175th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for Roll Call vote No. 482, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 3369, I would have voted Yea. For Roll Call vote No. 483, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 4359, 1 would have voted Yea. For Roll Call vote No. 484, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 2250, I would have voted Yea. For Roll Call vote No. 485, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 3630, I would have voted Yea.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Jane Clark on her exemplary career and decades of service to the West Michigan community. It is an honor to express my gratitude to Ms. Clark for her dedication, commitment, and hard work towards advancing West Michigan.

In 1990, Ms. Clark began her West Michigan business career with the Holland Area Chamber of Commerce, before guiding its merger into the Michigan West Coast Chamber. Throughout her career, she has filled the critical roles of Membership Director, Vice President, and President of the organization. She has worked hard to shape the Chamber of Commerce into a pillar of the community. Under her leadership, the Chamber was named the Outstanding Chamber of the Year for Michigan in 2018 and, in multiple years, the Chamber received a 5-star accreditation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

On top of her many years at the Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Clark has also devoted her time to serving on the boards of several cherished West Michigan institutions, including the Holland Museum, Holland Hospital, and the Tulip Time Festival. Recently, her efforts were highlighted by the Grand Rapids Business Journal, who named her as one of the most influential women in West Michigan.

Throughout her career, Ms. Clark has strived to help guide, mentor, and develop the 1,250 West Michigan businesses that she represents.

Madam Speaker, please join me in thanking Jane Clark for her years of dedicated service to the West Michigan community. Her strong leadership has helped propel the West Michigan business community to where it is today.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time and his leadership on this.

Madam Speaker, every day capital markets are under attack here with this Securities and Exchange Commission.

The climate disclosure rule, which was released in March of this year totals over 500 pages--over 500 pages--and includes over 1,000 technical footnotes. And oh, by the way, the SEC initially gave everybody 30 days to comment on that--30 days. Now, you can't even get through the analysis of the original 500 pages much less the 1,000 technical footnotes on that within those 30 days. But in reality the SEC doesn't really know what this far-reaching rule will cost small, independent, and nonpublic businesses across our country.

In fact, very deep in the summary of the rule the SEC admits:

In many cases, we are unable to reliably quantify the

potential benefits and costs of the rule and, therefore, we

encourage commenters to provide us with relevant data or

empirical evidence that would allow us to do so.

Let that sink in: We have no idea what the impact is, so why don't you just give us some data to help us work through this? Now, I remind you, this is not a study, and this is not research. This is a finalized proposed rule that the SEC is trying to jam through in 30 days.

Oh, but they expanded that now, so thank you very much. Now, there are three basic rules on real estate.

What is the most important part about real estate?

Location, location, location.

Well, for the SEC it should be materiality, materiality, materiality.

How is this information material to a publicly traded company and to the investors who are investing and putting their hard-earned money into those companies.

So materiality, materiality, materiality should be the battle cry. But it is not with this SEC.

In fact, in recent months, the Commission has put forth a huge volume of additional proposals. At times it doesn't appear to be fully informed about the likely economic consequences of the proposed rules and that display significant misunderstandings of the activity the Commission seeks to regulate. So without proper economic analysis, mistakes and unintended consequences are going to be inevitable.

Madam Speaker, since late last year, the SEC has embarked on a remarkable rulemaking agenda. In the 14 months since he was sworn into office, Chair Gensler has charted a path for the SEC unlike it has seen in its 88-year history. To be charitable, he is pushing the envelope.

To be charitable, this aggressive stance of the chair is unprecedented. The reality is they can't get their agenda done through the legislative process, so they are just going to regulate it. So the SEC is going to continue to push the boundaries of the statutory authority Congress has given them.

Unfortunately, instead of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation-- that is part of their three-part directive, facilitating capital formation--they are actually going to regulate small, privately held companies in your district right out of business.

So Congress did not establish the SEC to set climate policy nor for it to be the final arbiter of businesses' strategies to combat climate change. In her recent dissent over the proposed rule, Commissioner Hester Peirce rightfully noted that the SEC is not the securities and environment commission.

My colleagues and I have grave concerns that this rule will set a precedent that will allow regulators to expand their authorities far beyond the bounds of the law. In fact, we have seen some recent Supreme Court cases about that with the EPA. The proposed climate rule shifts the SEC's rulemaking authority--to be charitable--taking a novel, activist approach to climate policy.

What is next?

All of it. Frankly, that is what is on his agenda: all of it. They want all of

it. That is their idea of how this economy ought to be running, not how to protect investors, not how to facilitate efficient markets, and certainly not how to build capital. That is not the job of the SEC that has been proposed here.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Hill's resolution and restore sanity to the rulemaking process.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say thank you. Thank you to a chief of staff, a colleague, a confidante, and a special friend.

Jon DeWitte has been my chief of staff for 11\1/2\ years. In fact, when I was elected in 2010, Jon was the first call that I made. He was my first hire, and we have been on this journey together the entire time.

Now, Jon has had a great track record here in Washington, D.C., as well. He worked for the Education and Workforce Committee. He then went on to work with former Congressman Dave Camp. Then when I left the position of district director from my predecessor, Peter Hoekstra, Jon came and filled that role and filled that position for 8 years until I got elected, when I asked him to come back to Washington and act as my chief of staff.

Well, Jon--two redistrictings, majority, minority, government shutdown, impeachments, war, peace--we have seen just about all of it and have lived that textbook of political science. I couldn't have done it without him, and I know he could not have done this without his family.

I want to say a special thank you, as well, to Jodi, Nathan, Katie, and Josh for the sacrifices that they made--the sacrifices that they have made--for late nights and early mornings, for travel, for all the different things that go into being an excellent chief of staff. He has been one.

Now, I know that there are great paths ahead for Jon, and great paths ahead for all of you, but I do know that our friendship will not end. Team Huizenga is always Team Huizenga, and Jon is a vital part of that.

So once again, I thank Jon for his service, not only to me, but more importantly, to the constituents of the Second Congressional District back in Michigan and service to his country.

A job well done and I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding. As we come to the floor to honor Matt, I know that Matt and his colleagues are watching right now.

My colleague was able to run through the litany of his career, but I will note that, in 1987, I was just graduating from high school when Matt was hired. He has had an incredible tenure.

I can tell you that throughout his career, Matt has put the staff and Grand Valley community at the center of it all, but most importantly, it was about the students for him. It was always about the students.

Whether it was him looking out for who would be the next leader for the student council and the student body president or who would be a great intern in an office like mine or many others, whether it be in Lansing or in Washington, D.C., Matt was always there for the students.

As was said, when he joined the university, it was a smaller college of 8,000 students literally in the middle of a cornfield, and it now is this juggernaut, powerhouse of a university in Michigan with five locations and 23,000 students. That is, in part, due to Matt's efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of knowing Matt personally for well over 25 years, and I, too, grew up listening to Matt on local television at first. I can tell you that his wisdom, his counsel, and his encouragement that he has to offer to friends, family, and colleagues is something that he is known for. I have never met anyone quite so positive as Matt when it comes to life.

In addition to his time at Grand Valley and his time on television, he served the State in lots of various ways, on committees and commissions.

One very notable one was the Public Service Commission as he was there serving and trying to help lead the direction of the State through multiple administrations and various Governors.

I will tell you this though, Mr. Speaker, the thing that Matt is especially known for is his Michigan political trivia. Now, I can tell you that if you had been wondering who the Lieutenant Governor was in 1923, all you had to do was ask Matt. He would be able to tell you, and he is probably telling and saying the name right now to his colleagues as he is watching this.

So here is what I need to say today: Congratulations, Matt, and thank you. Jane is going to enjoy that time together with you. I know that you have got more coming. Even though you may not have quite figured it out, I know you are fighting to the very end for Grand Valley and for that budget period that is in Lansing right now.

But here is something that we all need to know: Matt is a Laker for life, and I thank him for his service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to welcome home Corporal Laverne ``Dirk'' Van Dyke, who sacrificed his life during World War II, and was finally laid to rest in his and my hometown of Zeeland, Michigan, after nearly 80 years.

U.S. Army Air Force Corporal Dirk Van Dyke served as a flight engineer on a B-25C aircraft in the Pacific theater when his plane went missing. Corporal Van Dyke and six other crewmembers were last seen departing an airport on the reconnaissance mission off the coast of New Guinea on January 18, 1943.

Despite an extensive search, members of the Fifth Air Force were not able to locate the plane or the airmen. Many years later the wreckage was discovered in the mountains of Papua New Guinea, and the remains of Corporal Van Dyke and others were seemingly identified but were inconclusive. However, recently the Department of Defense officially considered Corporal Van Dyke accounted for.

Madam Speaker, we will never forget the selfless actions, sacrifice, and dedication to our country by these servicemembers and what they displayed.

To Corporal Van Dyke's family, our entire Nation holds you in our prayers as we get ready and prepare for Memorial Day, and as you welcome Dirk home as an American hero. Rest easy, Corporal Van Dyke. Rest easy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation,

H.R. 935, the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, this bill isn't new, we have been here before. In fact, this will be the third instance that my legislation has actually come to the floor. Each time Members of this body have unanimously supported the legislation before us today. I certainly hope that the third time is the charm.

Let's be clear. For small, privately-owned businesses, merger and acquisition advisers and business brokers perform crucial roles in preparing these privately held businesses for a sale or a merger by finding and screening potential business buyers or partners. These brokers play a vital role in navigating M&A transactions to successful outcomes.

Unfortunately, Federal securities regulations technically require an M&A broker to be registered and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as FINRA, just like a Wall Street investment banker selling or buying publicly traded companies. This is a problem long identified by both practitioners and the regulators themselves.

Whether it is a small, locally owned store in Holland, Michigan, my hometown, or a Fortune 500 company, today, the same rules apply, regardless of the size of the business, the size of the transaction, or whether they are publicly or privately held.

Sadly, these last 2 years have only increased the need for my bill. Despite $5 trillion in COVID relief packages, which have often picked winners and losers, rising costs due to inflation are making it difficult for many small businesses to keep the lights on today.

Recent data from the Federal Reserve itself showed that 85 percent of small businesses experienced financial hardships and difficulties in 2021. According to the Small Business Administration, 68 percent of small business owners say they are having a hard time keeping and hiring staff.

Nevertheless, small businesses continue to be the backbone of all of our local economies. Just look at my home State of Michigan, which is the home of very large companies like the automakers, office furniture makers, chemical companies, and medical device companies. But it also is a place where 98 percent of businesses are small businesses--98 percent of them--and they employ literally half of the Michigan workforce. Just as important, for every $100 spent at a local business, roughly $68 stays in the local economy, according to studies.

Small businesses need to grow and have to do a couple of different things to be successful. For some that means they need to consolidate; some may need to restructure and try to recover from the challenges that have been exacerbated by the pandemic or the economy or whatever it might be; and sometimes it may be a family succession plan that is happening within those small businesses. These innovators, entrepreneurs, and risk-takers are critical to our country's economic growth and prosperity. We need to level the playing field that gives an unfair advantage to those Wall Street big guys.

So, how did we get here?

As was discussed, in 2006 merger and acquisition brokers attempted to address their concerns with the Securities and Exchange Commission by developing a rule that would codify and simplify the ``broker-dealer'' regulation.

Unfortunately, due to the fallout from the great financial crisis, the SEC could not make the time for this rulemaking and make it a priority, which sent groups then to Congress for a legislative fix. Along the way, this bill has enjoyed bipartisan and bicameral support. It passed the Committee on Financial Services, not once, not twice, but now four times, including this last summer.

In 2014, the chief counsel of the Division of Trading of the Securities and Exchange Commission released the M&A broker no-action letter, which concluded that the SEC staff would not recommend enforcement against an unregistered person who was engaged in facilitating a securities transaction solely related to the purchase or sale of a privately held company--regardless of the size of the company--provided certain enumerated conditions were met.

H.R. 935 is consistent with the no-action letter but will clarify and simplify the merger process for small businesses and M&A brokers. The bill codifies the extensive investor protections, while not affecting the SEC's jurisdiction over M&A brokers.

However, a no-action letter is not legally binding. It cannot change securities laws. That is up to us, Congress. We must pass my legislation to provide legal clarity once and for all.

Madam Speaker, we have been on this journey for nearly 10 years, going back to the 113th Congress. While many of the Members who served with me back then no longer remain, the challenges small businesses face have not dimmed.

Madam Speaker, I recognize my colleague, Representative Brian Higgins from New York, who has been the original cosponsor from day one, and he has been on this journey every step of the way, as well as Congresswoman Maloney and Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this commonsense bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to demand a vote on H.J. Res. 72, a Congressional Review Act resolution that would end the CDC's mask mandate for airlines, trains, buses, and other public transportation hubs.

Tuesday night, the Senate voted in a rare bipartisan manner to end these mandates in what even CNN called a ``bipartisan rebuke of Biden administration policy.''

States and cities, big and small, across the country have ended or are in the process of ending their mask mandates at schools, basketball games, and even crowded restaurants.

Thousands of fans will pack arenas in the coming days to cheer on their teams during March Madness. At these games, they rightly won't be required to wear a mask. But as soon as they step onto a plane, a bus, a train, or even a metro, unelected bureaucrats, at the direction of President Biden, have decreed that masks must be put on and must be worn.

It is past time for this unscientific mask mandate to end. I am calling on Speaker Pelosi to hold a vote on repealing this mask mandate. Americans want their lives back, and it is time to vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 16, On Ordering the Previous Question, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3485) Global Respect Act; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4445) Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4521) Bioeconomy Research and Development Act I would have voted Nay.

Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 17, On Agreeing to the Resolution, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3485) Global Respect Act; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4445) Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4521) Bioeconomy Research and Development Act I would have voted Nay.

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for roll call vote number 1, On the Call of the House, I would have voted ``Present.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 2, On Ordering the Previous Question, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1836) Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4673) Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition Act; and for other purposes, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 3, on Agreeing to the Resolution, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1836) Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4673) Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition Act; and for other purposes, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to have this conversation.

This shouldn't be a surprise. We knew this day was coming since 2014. The Alternative Reference Rate Committee, the ARRC, has worked diligently to help ensure a successful transition from the aforementioned LIBOR rate system to a new system.

In fact, over the last several years, Republicans on the Financial Services Committee have raised this issue on numerous occasions with our prudential regulators, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury under even the last administration.

I, myself, have asked for a greater focus on this issue, but unfortunately, this request seemingly fell on some deaf ears. It was unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side seemed to sort of forge ahead without having a broader conversation. There was one hearing on this issue before we marked up this bill in July. We needed to do a better job in socializing this particular issue because now, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem.

We have Members of this Chamber who do not understand the issue and don't understand the process, and they look at this as being just rushed. They don't see the 2\1/2\, 3, 4, 5 years of having this discussion since the London Whale scandal happened where there was a manipulation of those international interest rates.

Here we are today, once again, because of a truncated process, and it appears to some of our Members that we are rushing through a bill that is going to expand the Federal Government, that could cost the Federal Government something, that is going to interfere with private contracts. We simply have not done the work to normalize and socialize this particular issue.

This has been described as a once-in-a-generation event, and we are talking about financial instruments with hundreds of trillions of dollars at stake, including effects that we can't even totally foresee.

Fast-forward more than 2\1/2\ years, here we are less than a month from the deadline, and we are just now voting on a bill to address these legacy contracts for the transition from LIBOR.

This is Washington and, frankly, the process at its worst.

So how did we get here? Every day, thousands of financial contracts attach LIBOR as the interest rate. With LIBOR phasing out, the financial system needs legal certainty on what happens to those legacy contracts that have this rate already baked in.

This bill attempts to provide a solution. It offers an alternative rate to affected parties who cannot agree on a rate to replace LIBOR.

To be clear, the rate offered under this legislation is one option. It does not prevent these parties from agreeing to something better that suits those particular needs of that contract.

Again, this bill was passed out of committee in July. Now, 4 months later, the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor were finally able to include their portions of this. That is 4 months of inaction that has caused some of that now, today, concern by many on this side of the aisle.

To make this situation more frustrating, we still don't know where the Senate stands. I don't, the chair doesn't, and certainly the industry doesn't know where the Senate is. Frankly, maybe the Senate doesn't know itself. But, hopefully, today will spur them into this conversation.

The bottom line is this process could have been much, much better. In fact, it should have been much, much better. It must be better when we are talking about preventing systemic risk to our financial system.

Our regulators who supervise the financial system have stated that this is a satisfactory fix, but I would wager a bitcoin that they aren't happy with how we arrived here today.

As a whole, I would like to thank the regulators for their hard work, and, in fact, I do believe that this bill would not be here today without their guidance. But this is not the process that Financial Services Committee Republicans would have pursued, and it is certainly not quite the bill that we would have drafted. But there are trillions of dollars at stake, and the safety and soundness of our financial system is at the stake, and here we are with an eleventh hour scramble again. Unfortunately, that seems to define how Washington, D.C., is being run today.

I will not stand in the way of this process, of allowing this process, and the progress for our regulators to be able to supervise this financial system. But I do encourage my Republican colleagues to trust our regulators and support this legislation despite having some doubts about the process of what we are seeing here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my comments for our colloquy, but the gentleman certainly knows that communication has been slim at best between staff and Members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who is a leader on this issue.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman at this point to engage in a colloquy if he is so willing.

I know this is an issue that is both thrilling and exciting, but let me just state that the problem I am hearing from some of my colleagues is they don't necessarily understand the depth, breadth, and work that has gone into this for years prior to this. They know that it is showing up. They are questioning whether there was a hearing; they are questioning whether there was a proper markup; and sadly, they are questioning that because it seems to be following a pattern as of late. That is why there are questions.

Mr. Hill, others from the committee, and I are trying to alleviate that. A number of our colleagues have expressed they haven't had time to really dive into it and come to us with those types of questions. So we are trying to deal with that.

But as far as our colloquy here, we both described in our respective remarks that it is regulators who ultimately worked on that.

Mr. Chairman, is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Yes, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, OCC, FHA, CFPB, and, of course, the Fed. I appreciate the technical advice that each of them has lent and, ultimately, their comments. They actually reviewed every change that was made to this bill as sufficient to address the issue.

It is fair to say that it is a fix that these regulators have requested. Is that fair?

Let's turn to the Senate here.

It is my understanding, however, that there is no consensus in the Senate and that it is unlikely, frankly, that any action in the Senate will specifically, exactly reflect this bill.

Would that be a characterization that you have as well?

I think we can let that reflect as a yes.

The Senate will probably be acting. We know that they will be acting, as has been expressed by the players on the Senate.

Please.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time on that; that would be my understanding of that. And a concern that I had of not having ``coercion'' is the word that I would use, that private entities could be coerced into using a particular declared rate.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. And I will just make a few final points on this bill.

There are trillions of dollars that are caught up in this, and this is about the safety and soundness of our financial system. Whether it is mortgages, car loans, you name it, this is an international stage where this is being played out on.

And as I have said, we could do better than an eleventh-hour scramble; should have done better than an eleventh-hour scramble, but here we are.

Again, this is not the process that I would have chosen or my colleagues on the Republican side would have pursued. It is not the bill necessarily that we would have drafted. But I will not stand in the way of allowing our regulators to supervise the financial system within checks, within proper checks.

This is not giving them free rein. I do expect that there will be changes to occur from the Senate. I look forward to hearing and listening to the regulators on those changes.

I do encourage my Republican colleagues to listen to our regulators, but, more so, listen to your Republican colleagues who have been working on this issue. And I ask that they support this legislation.

And, no, we will not see an increase in government. No, we will not see an increase in the regulatory footprint. It clarifies how we are going to be dealing with and how these private companies are going to need to move forward with the legacy contracts that they have that no longer are within the parameters that are allowed because of this fraud that had happened within the LIBOR system.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I don't know how you follow Andy Barr and that story.

Madam Speaker, Andy talked a lot about Carol, as he should, but we also want to talk about him and how he responded.

This is an opportunity to turn a tragedy into hope. And there are a lot of people that would be too bitter, too angry, too frustrated, too betrayed to take that opportunity and refocus it and turn it into help for others. Madam Speaker, Andy is doing that, and he is showing his daughters what his wife would do.

So to those of us who knew her, he is absolutely right, I can still hear in my mind's ear this, ``just get it done.'' It would be a desperate tone sometimes, ``just get it done.''

But the words that I think of as I was sitting here, and I have sort of thrown aside all the prepared remarks, and I want to speak from the heart. I just started writing down a few words.

Passionate, patriot, fierce--not mean, but fierce--and focused. She was a leader of teams, but a leader of her family, too.

And, Madam Speaker, that is Andy. He has been forced into some roles that he was not expecting he was going to have to take care of. And this is what he does best. He throws himself in. He dives in, and he works hard to help others. And that, too, is a legacy, a legacy for Carol and for the girls.

And for Eleanor and Mary Clay, may they know that their mom loved them. She loved them. And their dad loves them. And Carol is not with us today, but she is not gone because we won't forget her. And we will make sure her legacy continues.

Madam Speaker, we love Andy, and we are here for him. I am so grateful we can help so many others around the country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a symbol of true bilateral relations and collaboration between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States.

One hundred years ago, a group of Dutch Americans, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, established the Netherland-America Foundation. The creation of this foundation, commonly known as NAF, has spurred innovation and cooperation between our two nations through engagement with the arts, business, and public policy.

NAF works alongside the Caucus on the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which I am proud to co-chair, to strengthen the existing relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Dutch-American network has established deep connections throughout both of our nations, which is evident by the many NAF chapters spread from coast to coast here in the United States, including in my home area of west Michigan, as well as the Netherlands.

One of the greatest examples of exchanges between our nations is the prestigious NAF-Fulbright Fellowships that enable the foundation to offer awards to Dutch and American scholars pursuing graduate study degrees.

I am honored to recognize the Netherland-America Foundation and its 100-year record of success in celebrating our shared heritage and enhancing our cultural exchange. These strong bonds will continue to build on our past successes and develop a more prosperous and mutually beneficial relationship in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Corporal Duane E. Dewey for his service, sacrifice, and dedication to our country.

Corporal Dewey's instinctive action and bravery saved the lives of a number of his fellow soldiers and earned him the highest military decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor.

He began his service in the Marine Corps in 1951 when he enlisted for the duration of the Korean war.

On April 16, 1952, Corporal Dewey and his fellow marines were engaged in a firefight where they were outnumbered more than 20-1. During this fight, Corporal Dewey was wounded in the legs by an enemy grenade. While being treated for this injury, another grenade was thrown within reach.

At a moment's notice, Corporal Dewey grabbed the grenade and literally sat on it while pulling the medic who was treating him onto his body, using his body as a shield to save those around him.

Amazingly, although he sustained severe injuries from both grenades and a separate additional bullet wound to the abdomen, Corporal Dewey survived the fight.

These actions of this great, brave, and courageous man earned Corporal Dewey the Medal of Honor, which I hold here today, his challenge coin. It was actually presented by President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself, the first one that he did personally, who notably remarked--accurately, I would say--that Corporal Dewey must have a ``body of steel.''

Madam Speaker, Corporal Dewey is the epitome of an American hero. May we honor his legacy and never forget his selfless actions.