Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, one that provides for consideration of H.R. 1343, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act.

I strongly support the underlying legislation. I wish it had been brought forward to the floor under an open rule that allowed Democrats and Republicans to freely offer amendments that could be adopted by a simple majority vote.

Before we get to the specifics of the bill, I want to talk about the importance of employee ownership. I join my friend and colleague from my neighboring district in Colorado in extolling the virtues of employee stock ownership, of ensuring that employees in the company are stakeholders and able to benefit from the value that is being created.

You know, we have different stakeholders in our economy, and when you look at a company, you have different stakeholders that that company is responsible to and caters to: You have the shareholders, you have the employees, and you have the customers. In running a company, as I have done, it is always a constant balancing act to make sure that you are able to satisfy the legitimate demands of all those various stakeholders.

Now, one of the things that has been out of whack in our economy the last few decades is that a disproportionate share of the value creation has gone to the shareholders and the customers, often to the detriment of the employees.

Now, everybody has benefited as consumers and as customers with revolutions in prices and consumer technology. It is so exciting to see people, you know, where a flat screen television used to be out of reach, you now see them in nearly every home; and, in many cases, they cost less than a television would have cost that was significantly smaller 10 years ago--not to mention the remarkable mobile computing devices that middle class families and working families carry in their pockets with them that contains more processing power than a $3,000 computer did just a decade ago.

Consumers have benefited and shareholders have benefited. There has been an unprecedented increase in private equity markets, in stocks, a huge amount of value creation in the American economy, both on the balance sheet as well as in the market valuation of companies.

Now, the issue is that, while all of this has happened, wages have largely stagnated. A lot of the increases in efficiency and economic growth have gone to benefit consumers and shareholders. Employees and workers have felt, legitimately so, that they haven't seen their share of value creation.

Now, there are a number of reasons for that. One of those has been the weakening of the union movement that gave workers a collective voice. But if you look at what some of the remedies are, really none can make a bigger impact than employee stock ownership. This bill doesn't change the ball on that. It is a positive step.

There are a lot of other ideas that I hope we can talk about in a bipartisan way. Fundamentally, we need to create an economy that works for everyone, one in which employees and workers can directly benefit from the increase in value of the firm that they helped create. And what better way to do that than employee stock ownership in a variety of models and options for that. This bill deals with one; but we have ESOPs, we have co-ops, we have employee stock option plans, to name a few.

Companies find that it is in their interest to help improve morale and maintain a stable employee base to align the incentives of employees with shareholders and, of course, to help align the success of our economy with the success of all the stakeholders in our economy.

H.R. 1343 is a bipartisan bill. It was passed last year; it will pass again overwhelmingly this year. It sends a strong statement that Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives want to make employee stock ownership easier. Hopefully, this is a starting point rather than an ending point.

The two other bills the Chamber is considering are also bipartisan, and I am hopeful that they can move forward expeditiously.

Now, that stands in stark contrast to some of the other actions of this Chamber, for instance, the 15 Congressional Review Act resolutions which simply sought to undo some of the positive steps that President Obama took rather than put forward a proactive agenda of where Republicans actually want to lead the Nation.

We also spent countless hours debating healthcare legislation that, thankfully, didn't go anywhere because it would have left 24 million Americans without health insurance and increased premiums by 15 to 20 percent for those who were lucky enough not to lose their insurance altogether.

I am glad that we have been able to move past that towards a more bipartisan discussion here that will fundamentally help American innovators and entrepreneurs and help lead to a fair economy that works better for everybody, that shows that Democrats and Republicans can work together to create a real solution that addresses a real problem and takes a first step towards creating an economy that works for workers, consumers, and shareholders.

I am hopeful that we can continue this trend after the district work period and move forward on bipartisan legislation that will simplify our complex Tax Code and realign incentives in

a positive way, fix our broken immigration system, and make sure that we have the infrastructure we need for our country to succeed in the 21st century. I hope that my colleagues are encouraged by the strong bipartisan show of support for H.R. 1343 and we can work together to bring more bipartisan legislation to the floor instead of divisive bills that make problems even larger.

This bill, very simply, updates an SEC rule from 1999 that will allow private companies to offer employees a greater stake in the place they work without requiring additional paperwork or regulation--a simple and good idea.

Currently, a private company that offers over $5 million in securities through compensation for employees is required to provide additional disclosures which can, A, often serve as a detriment to going over the $5 million in compensatory stock for their employees, and, B, take up costs, administrative overhead, should they choose to proceed. H.R. 1343 simply raises that threshold from $5 million to $10 million, and this legislation gives a private company more flexibility to reward and retain employees of all levels.

Employee ownership of various structures has benefits to both the company, the employees, and the overall economy. It helps align the interests. It results in more productivity, higher employee retention. It can help make a business more profitable and more sustainable. It helps make the American economy and the amazing value that is created work for everybody rather than just one of the stakeholder groups.

For many startups and small businesses, giving employees a stake in the business is a great way to provide an additional benefit, an incentive. It gives companies flexibility to attract new employees when they are starting up, to retain talent as a company grows and matures.

Providing workers stakes in their company helps strengthen their retirement savings. Employee stock ownership plans, or ESOPs, are a type of retirement plan that offers employees an ownership stake without upfront costs. In Colorado, there are 118 businesses that use employee-owned ESOPs as a way to promote employee ownership.

A good example of an ESOP is Fire Safety Services. The owner, Jeff, wanted to offer his employees a stake in the business. He converted his business to an ESOP, an employee-owned company, that allowed him to create a succession plan so the business can stay locally owned by the people who worked to create the value. Jeff noted that, after the conversion, employee morale was up and sales were up.

One of our most famous examples of employee-owned companies is in my district in Fort Collins, Colorado: New Belgium Brewing. From the perspective of the employees, New Belgium has a very strong corporate culture of personal and collective growth. The employee owners are concerned about their own professional development and that of their colleagues. They have a vested stake in the management, economic health, and stability of the company.

This bill is a commonsense approach and makes it easier for companies to give their employees ownership opportunities. It is a small first step towards encouraging an economy that works for everybody.

Now, I want to make sure that this legislation helps employees at all income levels have access to ownership opportunities and that workers' retirement savings are not put in jeopardy by an overconcentration in company stock. That is why I offered an amendment requiring GAO to do a study on the impact of this legislation on employee participation and ownership and the effect this legislation has on securities held by retirement plans that are governed by ERISA.

I very much look forward and am grateful that the rule has made in order my amendment. This study will give us important information on how these changes impacting employee ownership also affect retirement. It will give this body information that we need to move forward.

The example of my amendment is an example of the many great ideas that Democrats and Republicans could have brought forward had this been brought forward under an open rule. What better bill to bring forward under an open rule than this kind of bipartisan bill where there is nobody in this body who is trying to undermine or sabotage this bill?

There may be some Members who vote against it on both sides, I don't know, but the overwhelming majority are for it. I think there are Democrats and Republicans with great ideas who would love the opportunity to take 10 or 15 minutes--10 minutes as I am afforded under this rule. How many other Republicans and Democrats would love that same opportunity to offer amendments to improve this bill to make it even better?

The good news is employee ownership is not a partisan issue. Employee ownership strengthens our economy, helps small and medium-sized and large businesses across our entire economic spectrum create and retain jobs, and promotes an increased retirement savings for the middle class. These companies are often anchor businesses in our communities that go beyond offering jobs but are involved with sponsoring Little League or being involved with community nonprofits by giving back, by helping local charities and helping support an ecosystem of entrepreneurship by helping other entrepreneurs get off the ground through mentorship networks and angel funding networks.

I am a strong supporter of this bill and, of course, want to point out that it is simply a starting place. We have a long way to go with encouraging employee ownership in all of its forms--ESOPs, co-ops, stock options, outright stock grants--and any other ways that we can come up with or that the private sector can come up with that allow a stake in the company and in the value being created to reside with the employees, aligning their incentive, making our economy work for everybody, and ensuring that stakeholders have balanced benefits from our overall growth.

I support this bill. I wish it had been brought to the floor under an open rule. I oppose the rule.

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

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

You know, the beauty of an open rule, which we did see when the Democrats had the majority and we have not seen since the Republicans took the majority, is it allows the floor debate to inspire good ideas. It allows Democrats and Republicans to bring forward amendments, subject to germaneness, that can be considered and voted upon.

Frankly, it seems like the Republicans didn't have much for us to do this week. This would have been a perfect week to try an open rule; and I know that Democrats and Republicans would have, consistent with the spirit of an open rule, brought forth good ideas and offered them. Good ideas would have been included in the bill.

But most importantly, we could have set a precedent that open rules work and an open process that values our contributions as legislators and as representatives of 750,000 Americans who would be able to work to improve legislation. So I think that we need to move in that direction. Let the debate on the floor and the back-and-forth inspire new collaboration between Democrats and Republicans, new ideas, new ways of working together.

Here you have a concept that Democrats and Republicans join together in support of. How can we reduce the costs or the red tape around administering employee ownership? We would love to remove barriers to employee ownership that exist across all forms of employee ownership.

We would love to see an economy that works for everybody, one that values employees and workers as stakeholders that share in the economic growth that they helped create. That is a big part of the answer to the discrepancies in our economy and the simple fact--yes, fact--that the majority of the benefit of our economic growth has resided with a few and, generally, with shareholders and executives rather than workers.

So at the same time we can continue to move forward with conveying value to consumers, I think we can also find a way to make sure that workers are able to participate in the value that is created in our economy. But to be able to do so, we should have an open process that allows Democrats and Republicans to bring forward germane amendments that improve the bill, to create an even better and more comprehensive effort to encourage employee ownership.

Employee ownership ultimately touches a number of different committees. There are issues around employee ownership that affect government procurement. There are issues that would reside in the Ways and Means Committee under taxes. There are issues that reside in the Judiciary Committee, and, yes, Financial Services and regulator issues as well.

I am hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work together to create a comprehensive omnibus approach to improving access to employee ownership for firms across our country.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to convene several roundtables in my district featuring employee-owned businesses, and it has been great to hear their stories, whether it is New Belgium Brewing, talking to employee owners who are excited to spend their time building value for themselves and creating stability in their own job and bringing a wonderful craft brew product to people in all the States in which they distribute, or medical care companies and so many others that have different variations of employee ownership.

As a private sector entrepreneur before I came to Congress, I founded several companies in the technology sector. My companies used stock options for every employee, ranging from entry-level front desk and telephone all the way to executive positions; and, frankly, Mr. Speaker, that has become the standard in the tech industry.

So many venture-backed companies and technology companies provide stock options across the board such that people who participate in building that value are able to also participate in sharing the value that is created. That is one of the great aspects of the technology sector, in particular, and the startup sector that I hope can export to other sectors.

On the margins, this bill will make it a little bit easier for small and mid-sized companies to provide equity compensation to employees. But again, we need to do a lot more. We need to do a lot more culturally to make this the norm. We need to do a lot more from a tax perspective and from a regulatory perspective to make it easier for companies to share ownership with employees so that employees can benefit from the value that is being created.

It is considered the cultural norm and the best practice within the technology entrepreneurship sector, and I hope that that can carry across to other sectors as well. It is very important to have an economy that works for everybody, and employee ownership is a critical linchpin of that effort.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating on a rule and a bill that makes it easier for companies to offer employee stock as part of their compensation; but, unfortunately, the backdrop to this discussion is that there continues to be an enduring wage gap in which women are simply not paid the same as men for doing the same job. Any efforts by us to strengthen compensation packages continue to remain hollow for 51 percent of the country--women.

Today is Equal Pay Day. I wish you, Mr. Speaker, a happy Equal Pay Day, and it is time that we do something to address pay and equity in our country.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act in addition to the legislation we have been debating, H.R. 1343. So what that means is I will still bring forward this legislation. I will just also bring forward the Paycheck Fairness Act, which I am a proud cosponsor of.

Sometimes when we move the previous question, we bring forward a piece of legislation in lieu of the legislation that we bring to the floor under the rule. In this case, once we defeat the previous question, I will offer both of those bills: this employee stock ownership bill and the bill to address paycheck inequity, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) may be joining us on the floor in a few minutes to talk about her proposal.

I have an article written by Ms. DeLauro that I include in the Record.

[From Cosmopolitan, Apr. 4, 2017]

We Will Win the Fight for Equal Pay

(By Rosa DeLauro)

Think about 20 cents. It doesn't feel very significant--

there isn't much you could buy with it. But over a lifetime,

those 20 cents add up in a major way.

Today, we have reached yet another Equal Pay Day--the day

on which the average woman's earnings finally catch up to

what the average man made last year. This year's Equal Pay

Day falls 94 days into 2017--94 days too late.

Women are nearly half the workforce--yet they still only

earn about 80 cents on average, to a man's dollar. The gap

widens even further when you consider women of color--

African-American women make 63 cents on the dollar, while

Latinas make only 54 cents on average, compared with what

white men earn. This is unacceptable.

The National Women's Law Center found that based on today's

wage gap, a woman starting her career now will lose $418,800

over a 40-vear career. For African-Americans, the losses are

$840,040. And for Latinas, the lifetime gap is over $1

million.

These disparities exist at all levels of education and

occupation--even at the very top. The world champion U.S.

women's soccer team is fighting for pay equality, as are

Academy-Award winning actresses from Emma Stone to Viola

Davis and Patricia Arquette, who have used their platforms to

call for equal pay in Hollywood.

Men and women in the same job should have the same pay.

Period. Wage discrimination takes place not just on the

soccer field or the silver screen, but in the board room, on

the factory floor, and in countless other workplaces across

the country. That is why I am fighting for equal pay--for all

women.

I am fighting for AnnMarie in Massachusetts, who found out,

years into her job, that the university she worked for was

paying men more for the same work. I am fighting for Terri in

Tennessee, who only discovered she was making less than she

deserved because her husband held the exact same job and was

paid more! And I am fighting for ReShonda in Iowa, who

discovered that her own father was paying women less when she

went to work in the family business. Pay discrimination in

the workplace is real--and it is happening everywhere.

Pay inequity does not just affect women--it affects

children, families, and our economy as a whole. That is

because women in this country are the sole or co-breadwinner

in half of families with children. The biggest problem facing

our country today is that families are not making enough to

live on--and closing the wage gap would help address that

problem.

Over 50 years ago, Congress came together--in a bipartisan

fashion--to pass the Equal Pay Act and end what President

John F. Kennedy called ``the serious and endemic problem'' of

unequal wages. The Equal Pay Act made it illegal for

employers to pay men and women differently for substantially

equal work. Yet we still have so far to go to close the wage

gap.

In 2009, we took a critical step forward with the passage

of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which kept the

courthouse door open to sue for pay discrimination. But we

must continue the fight and finish the job by passing into

law the Paycheck Fairness Act.

I first introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act on June 24,

1997--almost 20 years ago. The Paycheck Fairness Act will

mean real progress in the fight to eliminate the gender wage

gap and help families. The act ensures that employers who try

to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same job

must show the disparity is not sex-based, but job-related and

necessary. It prohibits employers from retaliating against

employees who discuss or disclose salary information with

their coworkers. The bill would also allow women to join

together in class-action lawsuits where there are allegations

of sex-based pay discrimination.

The bill actually passed the House twice, with bipartisan

support. Yet it has never made it to the president's desk--

despite the fact that this is an issue that affects every

single state in this country. In the last session of

Congress, I was proud to have every single Democratic member

of Congress signed onto the Paycheck Fairness Act--and even

one Republican!

But we need to keep fighting. When women raise their

voices, we get results. Take the recent victory for the U.S.

women's national hockey team who were able to negotiate a

historic new contract to address pay inequality. They spoke

up--even threatening to boycott the International Ice Hockey

Federation World Championship games--and their voices were

heard.

In January, I attended the Wonnen's March in Washington.

The organic energy--the real, tangible power of the people--

was unlike anything I have ever seen. It was a stark reminder

of what we can achieve together, when we speak with one voice

and demand what we deserve.

When I looked out at the sea of pink hats and powerful,

handmade signs, I thought of my mother. When she was born,

women could not even vote. Yet today, her daughter is a

congresswoman. When we fight for equal pay for equal work, we

carry on the legacy of all the women who have fought before

us. And when we finally succeed, we will create a better

future for all the women who will follow us.

Equal pay is an idea whose time has come--in fact, it is

long overdue. But we have the power. We have the momentum.

And I believe that we will win.

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman DeLauro's article from Cosmopolitan magazine, dated April 4, 2017, today, talks about how, over a lifetime, the 20 cents that women are missing every paycheck on a dollar earned by men adds up. In fact, the National Women's Law Center found that a woman starting her career now will lose over $400,000 over a 40-year career. That could be a house. That could be college for two kids or three kids. That could be a family vacation every year. That means a lot, which is why we need to defeat the previous question and move forward on both of these worthy bills.

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

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

say to the gentleman that I do have one other speaker on the way.

Mr. Speaker, this bill under consideration is a small but significant step to help companies increase worker ownership to help improve the overall equity of our economy. I hope that this bill, along with the other two coming to the floor later this week, are the start of something. I hope they are a sign that this body will actually consider meaningful, bipartisan, practical, and commonsense legislation to address the issues the American people sent us to Washington to fix: creating jobs, growing our economy, reforming our Tax Code, and fixing our broken immigration system.

I hope my colleagues support the underlying legislation, H.R. 1343, oppose the rule, and defeat the previous question so I can bring forward not only the employee stock ownership rule, but also the Paycheck Fairness Act here on Equal Pay Day across America so that we can make sure as we are talking about making sure that women receive the same cash and ownership in recognition of their efforts as employees across the country.

This bill will hopefully pass overwhelmingly. I just wish it could be an example of how we could work under an open rule and give Democrats and Republicans a chance to build upon and improve legislation. There have been zero open rules under Speaker Ryan since he has taken over the Speaker's gavel promising, ironically, a more open process. It is about time.

If not this bill, what bill, Mr. Speaker? If not a bill with strong bipartisan support that Democratic and Republican leaders are committed to bringing across the finish line, when can we have an open process that allows us as legislators to bring forward our amendments in response to debate on the floor in realtime?

I wish that this would have been that bill. And I hope that by defeating this rule, we can send a message back to the Rules Committee that we should consider open rules for these kinds of bipartisan legislation.

Promoting employee stock ownership is incredibly important. To have a multistakeholder economy that works for everybody will help address a lot of the legitimate concerns that Americans have, that workers and employees have not shared, and the great amount of value that has been created.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to further discuss our proposal on the previous question on Equal Pay Day and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

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

I want to thank Ms. DeLauro for her tireless advocacy on behalf of equal pay. I would also encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is about time. Today, on Equal Pay Day, let's enshrine equality between men and women into the U.S. Constitution.

If we can defeat the previous question, we will bring forward H.R. 1343, the employee stock ownership bill, but we will also bring forward the Paycheck Fairness Act so that we can do a little more work of the people's work here in the House of Representatives and help make sure that we can look ourselves in the mirror knowing that men and women will both benefit equally from a hard day's work.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule to defeat the previous question and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1343 as a first step to encouraging an economy that works for everybody and employee stock ownership.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today we consider another bill requested by large corporations. But, I have to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules--Section 701 to be precise--the priority for this week?

We've been here for three months now. House Republicans set the agenda. They lead this governing body. Why do they keep bringing us bills that are the priorities of corporate

America? In the past few months, Congressional Republicans, who decide which bills get considered have brought forward a hodgepodge of corporate requests.

Here are some of the bills that are now law:

1) Republicans passed--and the President signed--a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations--like wage theft--before winning government contracts (H.J. Res. 37).

2) Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation (H.J. Res 42).

3) House and Senate Republicans--and the President signed--H.J. Res. 86 which allow Internet Services Providers to sell your browser history.

4) Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams (H.J. Res. 38).

5) Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption. H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments. This is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations.

6) And, a law preventing state governments from setting up retirement plans for residents who do not have a work-based plan (H.J. Res 66).

So, in the three months we've been back, these laws, removing competition, disclosure, and consumer privacy, are the priorities of Republicans who set the agenda. These are all asks of corporate America--

1) don't punish us for polluting streams,

2) let us sell your internet browser history,

3) let us make money drug testing laid off workers receiving unemployment due them and do not make us disclose our payments to foreign governments when we drill for oil or minerals.

When I talk to my constituents, they don't ask for any of these. They say, ``Where's the jobs bill?'' My constituents say, can't we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour? They say, our roads and bridges need work. Let's raise the gas tax a bit and invest in infrastructure. They say, we want to increase our skills; let's invest in pre-school, Pell grants and community colleges.

Let's put people, not corporate wish lists-- first.

But, nope, today we are asked to vote on a bill that makes it easier for private companies to provide options--like stocks--rather than compensation to their employees.

This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to their employees without disclosing financial information to them. While I'm glad to see companies reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive. Not some IOU that they cannot cash in any time soon.

With this bill, H.R. 1343, it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised, or even, completely worthless. So, employees could decide to forego a salary increase--or accept lower pay--in order to receive more stock options, yet, those stock options could be worth way less than expected. And the market to sell them could be non-existent.

Why should employees receive less information than that of any other minority shareholder? Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision about whether to invest in securities.

If an employee is trusted enough to run the day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the company's financials. It's not difficult to allow participating employees to sign non-disclosure agreements. It can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm. These companies prepared these types of disclosures to receive the Rule 701 Exemption from the SEC in the first place.

I'm also concerned about the mismatch in power between the corporations and their employees. I am very concerned that employees can be more susceptible to pressure to take options instead of salary increases. For example, we could ask George Maddox. George was one of the 21,000 people who worked at ENRON. After working at ENRON for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock. It was valued at $1.3 million. Then ENRON collapsed, and he had literally nothing. All his retirement was in ENRON stocks.

If you haven't watched the movies ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room recently, I'd urge you watch it again. You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name. One image has consistently stuck with me. A staff rally where leadership extolled the virtues of the firm. Leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy ENRON stock even as the leaders knew it was worthless. In fact, corporate leaders had already their stock. Yet, they were urging employees to buy!

ENRON had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring the new employees to buy ENRON stock to keep the stock price inflated. And since ENRON usually fired 10 percent of workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show a commitment to the firm.

I don't think the supporters of this bill are doing this for nefarious reasons. I'm sure they find my reference to ENRON hyperbolic. They might also say that it's irrelevant since ENRON was a public company and we are talking about private companies.

So, let's talk about Palantir Technonologies. This $20 billion company convinced top-tier engineers to accept below-market salaries by promising them generous stock options. But some employees who accepted this bargain, hoping to make money on selling their shares, cannot sell them. The only buyer of their stocks is Palantir Technologies themselves--or a buyer approved by Palantir Technologies.

Palantir is not a small firm. Palantir is the third biggest American tech startup, behind only Uber and AIRbnb. It was also founded in 2004, which makes Palantir as old as Facebook. Which is a long time to wait to cash in your options.

Pushing employees to own more of employer's stock exposes workers, like George Maddox, to put all their retirement eggs in one basket-- what we call ``concentration risk.''

I just can't support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors. I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forego cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option. We should not make it easier for employers to pressure workers to choose options over salary without adequate disclosures.

I ask this Congress to stop doing the bidding of corporate America until we address the priorities of American families and workers. We should increase wages and access to affordable housing, provide clean air and clean water, and protect our privacy

Vote no on H.R. 1343.

I would like to include in the Record an article from BuzzFeed News regarding ex-Palantir employees struggling to sell their shares:

[From BuzzFeed News, Oct. 28, 2016]

Ex-Palantir Employees are Struggling To Sell Their Shares

``Demand has evaporated'' for the shares that make up the

bulk of Palantir's pay packages, and the company's CEO seems

aware of financial angst among his staff.

Former employees of one of Silicon Valley's most valuable

startups are struggling to cash out of the stock options that

formed a major part of their pay packages.

As it grew into a $20 billion company, Palantir

Technologies convinced top-tier engineers to accept salaries

considered meager by Silicon Valley standards, pairing the

relatively low wages with generous stock option grants. But

some former employees who accepted this bargain, banking on a

future windfall, are now complaining that the market for

their stock has gone ``completely dead.''

The complaints add to pressure on Palantir CEO Alex Karp,

who has long contended that the company would avoid the

public markets. This week, Karp acknowledged publicly that he

was ``positioning'' Palantir for an initial public offering,

as part of efforts to reward cash-starved employees.

This reversal didn't come out of the blue. A chorus of

complaints has arisen in a private Facebook group for

Palantir alumni, with many former employees expressing

concern and regret over their inability to sell their shares.

In September and October, two former employees promoted

possible opportunities to join together to sell a block of

shares, including an unsuccessful attempt to organize a sale

in China.

Numerous other former employees shared personal stories:

Some said they needed the cash to buy a house or pay down

debt, while another said they took out a loan to fund the

process of turning the options into shares. One said it was

``infuriating'' trying to sell their shares in a ``crap''

market.

Compared with last year, when the stock was highly sought

after, demand among big investors for Palantir shares has

recently gone cold, two brokers who specialize in startup

shares told BuzzFeed News.

This chill reveals more about the fickle and sometimes

inscrutable nature of markets for startup stock than it does

about the business health of Palantir,'' which makes money by

analyzing data for government and corporate clients But it

has stirred frustration among current and former employees.

A complaint about Palantir's below-market compensation was

the most upvoted question in an internal question-and-answer

session in the first part of this year, with 259 votes from

employees, an internal document reviewed by BuzzFeed News

shows. ``Our cash compensation + bonuses are below the market

for tech and our equity growth has slown significantly,'' the

question, posed anonymously by an employee, said. ``The total

comp is not competitive; even more so due to the

illiquidity.'' The questioner continued, ``Are we planning to

change our compensation model?''

Palantir did move to address such concerns in April,

announcing it would raise salaries for many employees by 20%

and offer to buy back a portion of employee shares.

But on Wednesday, Oct. 26, in another move that seemed

aimed at placating employees and investors, Karp gave the

strongest indication yet that an IPO could be on the

horizon--though it is hardly a certainty. ``We're now

positioning the company so we could go public,'' he said from

the stage of a tech conference hosted by the Wall Street

Journal in Laguna Beach, California. ``I'm not saying we will

go public, but it's a possibility.''

An IPO would provide a payday to major investors, including

Palantir co-founder and chairman Peter Thiel. ``Of course I

want my investors to be happy,'' Karp said, ``but the primary

people I care about are the wide-eyed people at Palantir who

are working day and night.''

A Palantir spokesperson declined to comment.

With a $20 billion valuation, Palantir is the third biggest

American tech startup, behind only Uber and Airbnb. It is

also by far the oldest of that elite group, meaning its

workers have waited a long time for their stock-option

payday. Founded in 2004, Palantir is as old as Facebook--

which went public in 2012. In tech years, it is a generation

older than Airbnb, founded in 2008, and Uber, which was

founded in 2009. The much younger Snapchat, which was founded

in 2011, is reportedly laying plans for an IPO early next

year that could cause its valuation to leapfrog Palantir's.

Stock options have long been central to compensation at

Palantir. A 2015 template for a Palantir offer letter gave

new hires the ability to choose among three different pay

packages, with lower cash salaries corresponding to higher

amounts of stock options. ``It is our hope and belief that

these options will ultimately constitute the bulk of your

overall compensation,'' says this internal Palantir document,

which was reviewed by BuzzFeed News.

To illustrate the potential value of the options, the offer

letter template invites new hires to imagine a scenario in

which Palantir's valuation were to grow to $50 billion, or

$100 billion--or even $200 billion. ``Although the values in

the table below are hypothetical and inherently uncertain, we

want to emphasize our belief in Palantir's potential to

become a $100 billion company,'' the letter says. .

While it waits for this dream to materialize, the company

has sought to ease financial angst among its employees. It

held a ``liquidity event'' this year that gave current and

former employees an opportunity to sell a fraction of their

shares. But Palantir also indicated it wanted to curb share

sales done outside of its official channels, warning that

selling to outsiders could make staff ineligible for future

liquidity events.

That outside market hasn't exactly been humming with deal

activity anyway. Trading in private company shares is opaque

and fragmented, and data is hard to come by. But the two

brokers who spoke with BuzzFeed News said Palantir's prolific

fundraising--the company has raised more than $2.5 billion in

capital, according to data provider PitchBook--may have

dampened investor appetite. A number of big investors who

would want a piece of Palantir already have one, they said.

In May, BuzzFeed News revealed some of the setbacks

Palantir has experienced as it seeks to expand beyond its

roots as a government contractor and woo major corporations.

The article, based on internal documents and insider

interviews, reported that Palantir had lost some blue-chip

corporate clients, was struggling to stem staff departures,

and had recorded revenue that was a fraction of its customer

bookings.

At the conference Wednesday, Karp was asked about those

customer losses, which included Coca-Cola, American Express,

and Nasdaq. ``We date heavily before we marry,'' he answered.

Even before the article was published, members of the

private Facebook group for Palantir alumni voiced concern

about selling their shares in the so-called secondary market.

BuzzFeed News is withholding the names of former employees to

protect their privacy.

``Any 2nd market shares going on right now? My broker

disappeared,'' one former employee posted in April.

``There are still periodic deals happening,'' another

replied. ``One that I know of right now, but it's full

already.''

``Yeah, the demand has evaporated,'' another said.

More recently, however, some of the posts took on an urgent

tone, as sales appeared to grow scarcer. Options are

contracts to buy shares at a certain price; to use them, the

owner must pay this price in addition to applicable taxes--

which can amount to a large bill. What's more, options expire

at a certain point if they're not used, adding time pressure

to the equation.

In the public market, owners of options can easily sell a

portion of their holdings to cover the tax bill and the

exercise price. But this strategy is much trickier in the

private market, and there was some debate in the Facebook

group over whether Polar would even allow it.

In September, one former employee asked the group whether

anyone was ``coming up on their 3-year expiration,''

soliciting advice on ``approaches people are taking given the

less-than-stellar private market.''

Among the replies, one former employee reported taking out

``a personal loan to meet my exercise deadline.''

Another wrote: ``I'm in the same boat: 3 years coming up in

April, market is crap, and I probably don't have the

resources available for a loan. The fact that it's so

difficult to sell is infuriating and I'm wishing that I'd

taken the `high' salary option (which TBH wasn't that high to

begin with).''

``On the same boat,'' wrote another. ``Hoping to buy a

house next year and really couldn't wrap my head around

throwing so much money in addition to the stress and work

needed to process.''

The former employee who started that thread apparently

didn't receive much solace. In response to a later post,

which asked whether there were ``any secondary market sales

brewing,'' this former employee wrote, ``Sorry to be the

bearer of bad news, but the market is completely dead at the

moment.''

This person then quoted an unidentified broker as saying,

``There is absolutely nothing moving in Palantir. People who

have bought through us are trying to sell now. I don't see it

changing without the company changing their tone on an IPO.''

Others in the thread shared snippets of information they

said they had heard from brokers. According to one, a broker

``told me that there are a few `price insensitive' sellers

satisfying what little demand exists.''

Another former employee wrote: ``I'm interested in joining

any sales going down too, I've got a year to pay off a hefty

debt with the proceeds.'' The person added a neutral face

emoji.

With buyers scarce, one former employee tried looking

across the Pacific.

``I spoke to someone that brokers sales in China, they said

they might be willing to get something together if there's

enough of us,'' they wrote above a link to a Google Doc that

asked others to report information about their holdings

One of the repliers questioned whether this process would

actually turn into a sale--potential investors might just be

``fishing for information on prices''--and another cautioned

the original poster against ``acting as an agent for a group

of sellers.'' (The poster said the query was ``just intended

as an interest check.'')

In the end, none of that mattered. ``Not likely to go

anywhere in the next couple of months,'' the former employee

who posted the opportunity wrote later. ``Sorry if I got

anyone's hopes up.''

Early this month, another member of the group posted about

an opportunity to sell options through EquityZen, a startup

that arranges small transactions of private company shares.

This former employee advised others to contact the EquityZen

CEO, providing the CEO's email address. But less than 12

hours later, another former employee replied to say that the

deal ``has been already submitted,'' meaning the opportunity

had passed.

``Dang,'' another member wrote.

Discussions in the group about news related to Palantir

often come back to a familiar theme. In September, for

example, the Department of Labor accused Palantir of

discriminating against Asian job applicants, a claim Palantir

later rejected as ``flawed and illogical.'' In a thread

discussing the allegations, one former employee found a

financial angle.

``I sure hope this isn't an expensive lawsuit for them to

defend,'' this person wrote. ``I don't claim to understand

how the legal system works in cases like this, but geeeeez

this doesn't bode well for any of us looking for liquidity at

a fair price over anytime soon.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 1431) to amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1431.

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

I thank Chairman Smith and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Biggs for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I also thank my good friend, Representative

Peterson for, yet again, working--helping, I should say--to make this bill a bipartisan effort. I appreciate his willingness to sponsor this bill with me.

I had the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation when it passed this House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. Now, I come to the floor yet again to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important reform. The SAB Reform Act was a good bill then, and it is a good bill now. This is a policy that is built on the values we should uphold regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on or who happens to be the President.

H.R. 1431, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures the best experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science. The Board was established to provide scientific advice to the EPA and Congress, and to review the quality and relevance of science EPA uses for regulations. But in recent years, shortcomings with the process have arisen. Opportunities for public participation have been limited, potential conflicts of interest have gone unchecked, and the ability of the Board to speak independently has been curtailed.

If the administration undermines the Board's independence or prevents it from providing advice to Congress, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted.

Despite the existing requirement that the EPA's advisory panels be fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has identified a number of past problems that have undermined the panel's credibility and work product. These include a number of advisory members who received money from the EPA. At the very least, this could create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of the EPA's hydraulic fracking study published an anti-fracking article titled, ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' Now, this clearly is not an objective viewpoint, and should be publicly disclosed.

Public participation is limited during most board meetings. Interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of the work, and meeting records are often incomplete and hard to obtain.

This bill is both pro-science, and pro-sound science. This bill is founded upon recommendations for reform outlined by the National Academy of Sciences, and the EPA's Peer Review Handbook. This bill ensures that the Board is balanced, transparent, and independent, all of which will help prevent the SAB from being manipulated by any group.

H.R. 1431 makes sound science the driving force of the Board, no matter who is the chief executive officer of our government.

Perhaps most importantly, this bill seeks to increase public participation that benefits all stakeholders. Currently, valuable opportunities for diverse perspectives are limited. The Federal Government does not have a monopoly on the truth. Ask your constituents back home if they know that.

The public has important expertise that can't afford to be ignored in a democracy. State, local, tribal, and private sectors have a long history of qualified scientific experts. Their contributions should be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, the history of the SAB shows that private sector representation is often lacking or simply nonexistent. Instead, in the past, EPA has picked the Board, ignoring the knowledge, experience, and contributions of those experts. This bill ensures that qualified experts are not excluded simply due to their affiliation. This will add value and credibility to future Board reviews.

Mr. Peterson and I recognize the important role science should play in our policy debates and provides safeguards to give the public confidence in science. It restores the independent Science Advisory Board as a defender of scientific integrity.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, a fellow who has worked very diligently on the committee for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), a member of the Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

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

I include in the Record the following letters: a letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support from the American Chemistry Council, a letter

of support from the National Cotton Council of America, another letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a letter of support from the CO2 Coalition, and a letter of support from the Cato Institute.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2017.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Honest and Open New

EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA

Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' These bills

would improve the transparency and reliability of scientific

and technical information that Federal agencies rely heavily

upon to support new regulatory actions.

The HONEST Act is designed to ensure that the studies and

data Federal agencies cite when they write new regulations,

standards, guidance, assessments of risk--or take other

regulatory action--are clearly identified and available for

public review. Additionally, information must be sufficiently

transparent to allow study findings to be reproduced and

validated. This is a critical safeguard to assure the public

that the data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically

sound, unbiased, and reliable.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 would

help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which

directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) on key scientific and technical issues, is unbiased and

transparent in performing its duties. The bill would

establish requirements that SAB members are qualified

experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of bias are

disclosed, that the views of members--including dissenting

members--are available to the public, and that the public has

the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of

the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA relies on SAB

reviews and studies to support new regulations, standards,

guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions, the actions

of the SAB must be transparent and accountable. This is a

critical safeguard to assure the public that the data Federal

agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased.

The HONEST Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform

Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of

scientific and technical reviews and information that

agencies, including EPA, rely on to justify regulatory

actions that can significantly affect society. The American

public must have confidence that the scientific and technical

data driving regulatory action can be trusted. Accordingly,

the Chamber supports these important bills.

Sincerely,

Neil L. Bradley,

Senior Vice President & Chief Policy

Officer, Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would note to the body, part of the challenge that we face here today on this bill is like so many challenges we face as Members of Congress: How do you avoid the short- term perspective? How do you take the long view? How do you set into motion things that, while they might not, perhaps, give us the great advantage in the short-term sense that either side of the room would want, in the long-term, they are in the best interest of the body?

I would remind my colleagues, the Scientific Advisory Board is appointed by the EPA; the EPA is managed by the Director; the Director is appointed by the President of the United States. If you believe that the work product, if you believe that the rules that have been generated by this in recent years reflect your perspective, I understand that, but nothing is ever static.

We have recently had a change of administration. We have a change of direction in the leadership of the EPA. That will be reflected in all the appointments and the actions of the EPA.

I implore my colleagues, we need to work in the perspective of what is in the long-term interest; and that long-term interest is providing scientific review at the SAB that our fellow citizens have confidence in and that will generate good rules and regulations when they have to be created.

Following this course of action advocated in H.R. 1431 will not make my most conservative constituents happy because they want to duplicate what they believe my most liberal constituents have advocated for years, but our goal here is not to empower one or the other side in these perspectives to force their will upon the country. Our responsibility with the SAB is to create a process where we can have confidence in the results and where, when appropriate, the end resulting regulations, the rules that come from it, will be in the best long-term interest of the Nation as a whole.

I know there are requirements in here that, if you have taken money as a scientist to do a research project from the EPA, you have to cool off for 3 years. But what is wrong with allowing a little separation between the people who take money to do the studies and then become the judges of other studies in the knowledge that perhaps the people who have done the studies will judge their studies? What is wrong with that?

And the public disclosure about allowing people with knowledge and expertise to participate, too, if they have

a conflict through these disclosures, we will know. I would hope that whoever leads the EPA on whatever day would act in a responsible fashion.

I just want, through this bill, to change the system so that the perception is out there that the SAB and the scientific process and the rulemaking that comes from it at EPA are being gained by one perspective or the other because that is in no one's best interest.

I know we live in tough times and challenging times to legislate. I think my colleagues know, in the legislation I have worked on before, that I have always worked across the aisle. I have always worked with every perspective within this body. I have always tried to take that long-ball perspective. I know it is a challenging time, but think about that as we continue this well-meaning, good-spirited, very focused debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the former chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the second set of letters which I referred to earlier.

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 140,000 members of

the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am

writing to express NAHB's strong support for the Honest and

Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA

Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. These bills would

ensure an open and honest scientific process by allowing the

public access to the science that underpins regulations

developed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

ensuring that scientists advising the EPA on regulatory

decisions are not the same scientists receiving EPA grants.

It is important for the EPA to use sound science in order

to support their rulemakings. Far too often, the EPA relies

on science that lacks transparency and reliability to

buttress their rulemakings. This is a consequence of the EPA

conducting their scientific review of rulemakings behind

closed doors. The EPA frequently ignores scientific integrity

by limiting public participation, excluding state and private

sector expertise, and pushing a specific agenda by appointing

scientists who are biased. In some cases, scientists that

have been appointed to review proposed regulations have

received EPA grants which the EPA disregards as a conflict of

interest.

The EPA should not be able to create costly regulations

without being transparent, fair and open to public input when

considering the science behind a rulemaking. However, the EPA

has sacrificed the integrity of the rulemaking process by

using biased science to push their agenda. It is important to

address these shortcomings so that future rules can be

transparent and honest.

For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Science, Space and

Technology Committee to support the Honest and Open New EPA

Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA Science Advisory

Board Reform Act of 2017, in order to bring transparency and

integrity to the regulatory process.

Thank you for giving consideration to our views.

Sincerely,

James W. Tobin III,

Executive Vice President & Chief Lobbyist, Government

Affairs and Communications Group.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate to my colleagues, this is a situation where the goal really is not to empower one perspective or one faction over another. The goal, ultimately, of this bill--and, yes, this did come out of the inspector general's report, the initial work and effort. The goal of the bill is to add transparency, accountability. The goal of the bill is to increase the American people's confidence in the work product that is then used by the EPA to craft the rules and regulations that impact every life in this country on a daily basis.

Whatever your perspective may be, remember, the pendulum in this great Nation, when it comes to the executive branch, in my time, every 8 years, has swung back and forth. Just because at the present moment or the past moment you think you got your perspective's way, or if perhaps you think with the pendulum swing now you will get your perspective's way, that is not what the focus should be here.

I would also remind my colleagues, in my 23 years, I have served in the minority soon to be for 4\1/2\ years. But the other 18\1/2\ years, I have served in the majority. I have served in the majority. So when I step up to you and say we can do better, we can enhance the quality of information, we can do it in a way that the American people have more confidence in ultimately what goes on, and we can do it in a way that makes it more difficult for anyone to hijack the process, I say that sincerely.

There is nothing wrong with full disclosure for everyone who can add to the process, who should be available for consideration. There is nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off between benefiting from the studies and analyzing someone else's studies. There is nothing wrong with this.

But if you stay with the status quo, this Board and this Agency are in change. Get ready for 8 years of a dramatically different way of doing things.

Now, maybe you are so confident that the pendulum will swing back again that you are willing to accept that. But as for me, I want to stay between the lines. I want to focus in ways that, for the long term, represent the best interests of this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1431. I ask my colleagues to think about 10 or 20 years down the road. I ask my colleagues to put the long-term best interests of their constituents first.

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

I claim the time in opposition to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I look at this language--and I am a farmer by trade; I am not an attorney; I will confess that--but the phrase ``or other entity'' seems to be a very broad concept. How will that affect people who work for research foundations at institutions of higher education? How will that affect entities, people who are part of so- called think tanks in places like Washington, D.C.? I personally believe the language is intended more to simply turn the bill inside out.

On that basis, I would ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit with instructions and to pass the underlying bill.

But I go one step further, and I offer this in the most sincerest of ways: if you look at the discussion today and if you look at the discussion that has gone on for some time on these issues, it is almost as though there are those with certain perspectives who are trying to force their will--their perspective of what is right and wrong scientifically or economically or socially--on the rest of the country, on the rest of us, and, for that matter, on the rest of the world.

That is why I am the author of this bill. No one entity should have the power by manipulating the bureaucratic process or the rulemaking process to enforce their definitions of everything on the rest of us. We have both the right and the responsibility to judge this information and to make decisions about what is in our enlightened self-interest, as the old economist would say, or in the best interest of the country or of society as a whole.

That is why I want all of us--the great American people--to have access and some certainty about the people and the process that are driving everything in our world.

Reject the motion, pass the bill, create greater transparency, incorporate more input, and when it is necessary to have rules and regulations, generate good rules and regulations so that we all have a chance to prosper and to live up to our potential in this country. Don't let the tyranny of the idealistic--whatever perspective they may have--drive us all into despair and destruction.

With that, I respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this motion and pass the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the value of companies doesn't always go up. It is not true that the stock market always goes up and only goes up. It would be nice if Methuselahs at Google and every other company in America could get stock options and end up millionaires, but the truth is the world doesn't work that way. That is why disclosure is very important. That is why there is nothing wrong and no one objects to employees being compensated with stock options, but those employees ought to at least know the value of those stock options.

If you give me a check and it has a monetary value, I can read it and I know how much it is. If you give me stock options and you don't tell me because you don't have to disclose how much they are worth, then that is not fair, and that is what we object to.

This bill simply allows companies to avoid disclosure to employees of what those stock options are worth. That is wrong, and that is why we oppose it.

Let me just start in terms of the context, Mr. Speaker. Today we consider yet another bill in favor of the moneyed interests. Today we consider another bill that basically helps out people who have a lot while so many Americans are struggling to get by and problems abound almost everywhere.

I have got to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the SEC's rule--section 701, to be precise--the priority for this week?

We have been here for about 3 months now. The Republicans have set

the agenda. They are in the majority. They get to decide which bills come up. Why do they keep on bringing up bills that only the moneyed interests want?

Mr. Speaker, in the past few months, congressional Republicans--I almost called them corporate Republicans--who decide which bills are the priority, have brought forth a hodgepodge of pieces of legislation. I will just review a few.

Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation.

Do you think the unemployed want that?

I doubt it.

Republicans have passed and the President even signed a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations like wage theft before winning government contracts. I have got a feeling the employees were not calling for that.

House and Senate Republicans passed laws that allow internet service providers to sell your browser history. I don't think most folks on the internet today were clamoring for that gem, which I was proud to vote ``no'' on.

Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams.

Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption.

H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments, which is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation comes within a certain kind of context--a context where we are not talking about increase in pay, making people safer, making water cleaner, making foreign governments more honest. It is quite the opposite.

In the 3 months that we have been back in Congress, these laws removing competition, removing disclosure, and removing consumer privacy are all priorities of Republicans, who set the agenda.

Mr. Speaker, people who might be clued into this broadcast today need to know what the majority has been up to. It has not been up to business.

These are all multinational corporate interests that don't punish people for polluting, allow them to sell your internet browser's history, allow them to make money off of testing laid-off workers receiving employment compensation that is due them, and don't make corporate interests disclose payments to foreign governments when they drill for oil and minerals.

I just want the American people and Members to understand what is going on here, what is the larger context of this piece of legislation that we look at today.

When I talk to my constituents, they don't bring up any of this stuff. Mr. Speaker, they want to know: Where is the jobs bill? When are we going to get back to work? Somebody said we were going to work on real infrastructure, real fair trade. When is that going to happen?

Well, the people who are in charge around here, I guess they are going to get around to it at some point.

My constituents say: Can't we raise the minimum wage from something higher than $7.25 an hour, which is the Federal minimum wage? When is that bill coming up? Or, what about reconstructing our roads and our bridges and allowing us to raise a gas tax to invest in our Nation's infrastructure?

They say they want to increase skills. Let's invest in preschool, Pell grants, and community college. Let's put the people, not the corporate wish list, first.

Today we are asked to vote on a bill that basically makes it easier for private companies to provide options, like stocks, rather than compensation to their employees. As I have said, fundamentally, this may not be a bad thing if disclosure is made. This bill makes it not required. This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to employees without disclosing financial information to them.

While I am glad to see employers reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive. I don't think that is asking too much, Mr. Speaker.

With this bill, H.R. 1343, it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised or even completely worthless.

Employees could decide to forego a salary increase and accept lower pay in order to receive more stock options; yet, those stock options could be worth way less than they expected.

Why should employees receive less information than any other minority shareholder?

If an employee is trusted enough to run day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the stock. Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision.

It is not difficult to allow participating employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, and it can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm. These firms prepare these types of disclosures to receive rule 701 exemption from the SEC in the first place.

So I am also concerned about the mismatch of power between corporations and their employees, and I am very concerned that employees can be susceptible to pressure. Let me do a quick example.

George Maddox was one of 21,000 people who worked for Enron. After working at Enron for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock valued at $1.3 million. When Enron collapsed, he had literally nothing, Mr. Speaker. All of his retirement was Enron stocks. If you haven't watched the movie ``Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room'' recently, I would urge you to watch it again. You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name.

One image consistently stuck with me: a staff rally where leaders extolled the virtues of the firm. Just as we heard on the other side of the aisle a moment ago, leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy Enron stock, even as leaders knew it was worthless. In fact, corporate leaders had already sold their stock while urging employees to buy. Enron had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring new employees to buy Enron stock to keep the stock price inflated. Since Enron usually fired 10 percent of the workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show commitment to the firm.

I can't just support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors. I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forgo cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option. It is not right.

Mr. Speaker, I see you reaching for the gavel. I will include the rest of my comments in the Record. I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular piece of legislation until it allows for disclosures.

Today we consider another bill requested by corporations.

But, I got to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules--Section 701 to be precise--the priority for this week?

We've been here for three months now.

House Republicans set the agenda.

They lead this governing body.

Why do they keep bringing us bills that corporate America wants?

In the past few months, Congressional Republicans, who decide which bills are priorities have brought forward a hodgepodge of corporate requests.

Here are some of the bills that are now law.

Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation (H.J. Res. 42).

Republicans passed--and the President signed--a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations--like wage theft--before winning government contracts (H.J. Res. 37).

House and Senate Republicans passed laws that allow internet services providers to sell your browser history.

Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams (H.J. Res. 38).

Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption.

H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments.

Which is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations.

And, a law preventing State governments from setting up retirement plans for residents who do not have a work-based plan.

So, in the three months we've been back, these laws--removing competition, disclosure, and consumer privacy--are the priorities of Republicans who set the agenda.

These are all asks of corporate America--don't punish us for polluting streams; let us sell your internet browser history; let us make money drug testing laid off workers receiving unemployment due them, and; don't make us disclose our payments to foreign governments when we drill for oil or minerals.

When I talk to my constituents, they don't ask for any of these.

They say, ``Where's the jobs bill?''

My constituents say, can't we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour?

They say, our roads and bridges need work. Let's raise the gas tax a skoch and invest in infrastructure?

They say, we want to increase our skills; let's invest in pre-school, Pell grants and community colleges.

Let's put people, not corporate wish lists--first.

But, nope, today we are asked to vote on a bill that makes it easier for private companies to provide options--like stocks--rather than compensation to their employees.

This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to their employees without disclosing financial information to them.

While I'm glad to see companies reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive.

With this bill--H.R. 1343--it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised, or even, completely worthless.

So, employees could decide to forego a salary increase--or accept lower pay--in order to receive more stock options, yet, those stock options could be worth way less than expected.

Why should employees receive less information than that of any other minority shareholder?

If an employee is trusted enough to run the day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the stock.

Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision.

It's not difficult to allow participating employees to sign non- disclosure agreements.

And it can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm.

Because these companies prepared these types of disclosures to receive the Rule 701 exemption from the SEC in the first place.

I'm also concerned about the mismatch in power between the corporations and their employees.

I am very concerned that employees can be more susceptible to pressure to take options instead of salary increases.

For example, we could ask George Maddox.

George was one of the 21,000 people who worked at ENRON.

After working at ENRON for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock. It was valued at $1.3 million.

Then ENRON collapsed, and he had literally nothing.

All his retirement was in ENRON stocks.

If you haven't watched the movie ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room recently, I'd urge you to watch it again.

You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name.

One image has consistently stuck with me.

A staff rally where leadership extolled the virtues of the firm.

Leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy ENRON stock even as the leaders knew it was worthless.

In fact, corporate leaders had already sold their stock while urging employees to buy.

ENRON had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring the new employees to buy ENRON stock to keep the stock price inflated.

And since ENRON usually fired 10% of workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show a commitment to the firm.

I just can't support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors.

I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forego cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option.

I don't think the supporters of this bill are doing this for nefarious reasons.

I'm sure they find my reference to Enron hyperbolic.

They might also say that it's irrelevant since Enron was a public company and we are talking about private companies.

So, let's talk about Palantir Technologies.

This $20 billion company convinced top-tier engineers to accept below-market salaries by promising them generous stock options.

But some employees who accepted this bargain, hoping to make money on selling their shares, cannot sell them.

The only buyer of their stocks is Palantir Technologies themselves-- or a buyer approved by Palantir Technologies.

Palantir is not a small firm.

Palantir is the third biggest American tech startup, behind only Uber and AIR B-N-B.

It was also founded in 2004, which makes Palantir as old as Facebook--which is a long time to wait to cash in your options.

Pushing employees to own more of employer's stock exposes workers-- like George Maddox--to put all their retirement eggs in one basket-- what we call ``concentration risk.''

I ask this Congress to stop doing the bidding of corporate America until we address the priorities of American families and workers.

We should increase wages and access to affordable housing, provide clean air and clean water, and protect our privacy.

We should not make it easier for employers to pressure workers to choose options over salary without adequate disclosures. Vote no on

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. Like the bill we considered yesterday, the so- called HONEST Act, H.R. 1431 is designed to harm the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science to make informed decisions.

The bill before us today claims to reform the EPA's Science Advisory Board. And let's talk about what these reforms would mean.

First, the bill establishes a series of roadblocks to prevent independent academic scientists from serving on the Board. It accomplishes this by turning the term ``conflict of interest'' on its head by excluding scientists who have done the most relevant research on the topic being considered by the Board. The bill also prohibits Science Advisory Board members from obtaining extramural research grants for 3 years after their service on the Board, which would be a major disincentive for scientists to serve on the panel.

At the same time that this bill makes it much more difficult for academic researchers to serve on the Science Advisory Board, the bill also makes it much easier for corporate interests to serve. This is accomplished by gutting actual financial conflict-of-interest restrictions against industry representatives. Under this legislation, those industry representatives would simply have to disclose their financial conflicts, and they could serve on panels directly related to their corporate interests.

Finally, H.R. 1431 imposes exhaustive and duplicative notice-and- comment requirements on the Science Advisory Board. I say these requirements are exhaustive because, in addition to being an open-ended process, the Board would also have to respond in writing to any and all significant comments. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the advisory process created by this bill could ever be completed.

Of course, that is the real purpose of this provision. It is designed to throw sand in the gears of the Science Advisory Board process, and prevent board members from ever rendering their expert advice.

These additions are totally unnecessary. The Science Advisory Board already has statutorily mandated notice-and-comment obligations, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act already applies to their activities.

So if this bill passes, what would happen?

As an example, I will turn to a case study from the early 1990s. At that time, the EPA was forming a Scientific Advisory Panel to review evidence of harm from secondhand tobacco smoke. Thanks to internal tobacco industry documents that have been made public, we now know that Big Tobacco made a concerted effort to stack the Scientific Advisory Panel with tobacco industry hacks.

We take it for granted now that tobacco smoke is dangerous, but at that time, in the early nineties, Big Tobacco had succeeded in muddying the scientific waters around this issue by investing tens of millions of dollars in a coordinated attempt to defraud the American people.

If H.R. 1431 had been in effect back then, Big Tobacco likely would have succeeded in co-opting the Science Advisory Board.

What would the effects have been on public health to have had the EPA's science review body controlled by tobacco interests?

That is why a number of public health and environmental interest groups have come out against H.R. 1431. In a letter penned by the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and several other health groups, the effects of H.R. 1431 are summed up like this:

``In short, EPA's Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not the best interest of the American public.''

I couldn't agree more. I strongly urge Members to oppose this misguided bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record correspondence in opposition to this bill: a letter from the American Lung Association, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Public Health Association, the National Medical Association, the Health Care Without Harm Association, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American Thoracic Society; along with a letter from the Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council; as well as a letter from the League of Conservation Voters.

March 27, 2017.

Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical

organizations are writing to express our opposition to the

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest

and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our

organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving

public health.

Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health

decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our

organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act,

EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for

seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on

standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these

bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the

review of complex issues and add undue industry influence

into EPA's decision-making process.

As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would

make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:

Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that

include their own expertise;

Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on

the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the

expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them

these highly competitive grants;

Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making

policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have

regularly sought their advice in the past;

Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA

Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and

unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues

already include public notice and comment; and

Reallocate membership requirements to increase the

influence of industry representatives on the scientific

advisory panels.

In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit

the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to

respond to important questions, and increase the influence of

industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best

interest of the American public.

We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation

would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it

develops policy to protect the American public from

environmental exposures and permit violation of patient

confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:

Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient

information to third parties, including industry;

Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research

that documents the adverse health effects of environmental

pollution; and

Impose new standards for the publication and distribution

of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing

requirements of many scientific journals.

Science, developed by the respected men and women

scientists at colleges and universities across the United

States, has always been the foundation of the nation's

environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making

process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in

the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the

earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the

research-based scientific advice that scientists have

provided to EPA.

Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists,

not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's

decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in

EPA's policy-setting process.

We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.

Sincerely,

Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,

Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.

Harold P. Wimmer,

National President and CEO, American Lung Association.

Georges C. Benjamin, MD,

Executive Director, American Public Health Association.

Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,

Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.

Cary Sennett, MD, PhD, FACP,

President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Paul Bogart,

Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm.

Richard Allen Williams, MD,

117th President, National Medical Association.

Jeff Carter, JD,

Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Let me thank the other side for their vigorous defense of this bill.

I must say that I am a nurse by profession, and I appreciate the gains we have made for using scientific data to determine what is unhealthy for the people; and it really does disturb me to see these protections being torn apart.

It is really unfortunate that we have spent so much time putting these protections of the people in place to see that, in this administration, they will probably fly away. Only the people of this Nation will be the losers, with more healthcare costs when they don't even want health care; more people not able to get out of dirty areas.

I live in the State of Texas where we have seen the detriment of all of the lack of these protections before they came about. Scientists are in science because they believe in the theories that put forth the procedures for us to follow for the safety and protection of human beings.

I regret that we are at a point this time in history where we are willing to throw all that away because of allowing the polluting companies to have more to say about policy. I regret that I have to stand against my colleagues that feel so strongly about getting rid of these protections, but I cannot sit idly by without saying that our Nation will not be in better shape when we take away all the protections for the people and their health.

Everybody wants clean air and clean food and protections from the damage that a bad environment brings, and all this is is taking away those protections.

I ask everyone to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.