H.R. 1613House115th Congress (2017-2019)In Committee

HELP for Coal Miners Health Care Act of 2017

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 15, 2026 at 1:49 PM UTC

The HELP for Coal Miners Health Care Act of 2017 changes the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act so that money from the coal‑related fund can be moved into the Multi‑Employer Health Benefit Plan that provides health coverage for retired coal miners. It expands eligibility to include retirees whose benefits would be cut because of past bankruptcies and sets up regular audits of how the funds are used. The bill also tweaks tax‑code rules that affect how premiums for the plan are calculated and eliminates an extra “backstop” premium. It expresses the House’s desire to support economic growth in Appalachian coal communities.

Key Provisions

Amends SMCRA to allow transfers of excess fund amounts to the Multi‑Employer Health Benefit Plan for fiscal years after Sept. 30, 2016.
Defines the “excess” calculation to count only beneficiaries actually enrolled on the enactment date and those whose benefits would be reduced by 2012 or 2015 bankruptcy cases, treating those retirees as eligible for the plan.
Reduces any transfer amount by amounts already sent to the plan from voluntary employee beneficiary associations created by bankruptcy.
Requires the Government Accountability Office to audit the plan’s use of federal funds every three years and report to Congress.
Updates Internal Revenue Code provisions (section 9704 and related sections) to change premium calculations from three to two premiums, adjust account structures, and remove an extra back‑stop premium requirement.
Includes a non‑binding House sense that Congress should work with the administration to promote economic development in Appalachia and other coal‑dependent areas.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

HouseCommittee Latest Action

Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee

March 27, 2017

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

March 17, 2017

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Natural Resources Committee

March 17, 2017

HouseCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee

March 27, 2017

Floor Debate

16 members

What members said about H.R. 1613 on the floor

+11

11 Republicans5 Democrats

Rep. Maxine WatersD-CA-43 · Feb 1, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.J. Res. 41 would roll back the SEC's rule that implemented an important congressional mandate in Dodd-Frank requiring oil, gas, and mining…

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

H.J. Res. 41 would roll back the SEC's rule that implemented an important congressional mandate in Dodd-Frank requiring oil, gas, and mining companies to publicly disclose payments made to foreign governments for access to their natural resources.

That rule helps fight corruption in the extractive industries sector, provides investors with crucial information on their investments, and enables citizens to demand greater accountability from their governments for spending that serves the public interest. It also helps to diminish the political instability in resource-rich countries, which is not only a threat to investment but also to our own national security.

Specifically, the disclosure rule enables shareholders to make better informed assessments of opportunity costs, threats to corporate reputation, and the long-term prospects of the companies in which they invest.

In addition, opening the extractive industries to greater public scrutiny is key to increasing civil society participation in resource- rich countries, which are often underdeveloped countries that are politically unstable, rife with corruption, with a history of civil conflict fueled, in part, by natural resources.

Moreover, the SEC's rule is a reasonable disclosure and places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to, how much, or what for. After 5 years of robust debate and input, the final rule accommodated a number of industry concerns, providing companies with a generous 4-year phase-in period and a case-by-case exemption process for companies that face implementation challenges. The SEC also allowed companies to comply with the disclosure by using a report prepared for other substantially similar disclosure regimes, which include regimes in the European Union and Canada.

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to claim that the SEC's rule is harmful and puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign competitors.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to their own set of opinions, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. I suppose these are alternative facts.

The truth is that U.S. companies are not the only ones required to make these disclosures. Many foreign companies must report under the U.S. rules, including a number of state-owned oil companies, such as China's PetroChina and Sinopec, and Brazil's Petrobras.

Also, after the SEC issued its initial rule in 2012, the rest of the world followed our lead, establishing a global standard for the public disclosure of extractive payments companies make to governments.

A wave of transparency laws have been adopted in foreign markets that mirror the U.S. law. This includes legislation in the European Union, Norway, and Canada, which are all now in force. These laws cover the vast majority of oil, gas, and mining companies that compete with U.S. firms.

Now, leading global oil companies like BP, Shell, and Total, as well as Russia's state-owned companies--Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil--are entering their second year of reporting under EU rules without any negative impact.

So contrary to Republican claims, U.S. and foreign companies already compete on a more level playing field here and abroad. Therefore, rolling back the SEC's disclosure rule would directly undermine the interests of extractive companies in having a level playing field.

Worse, once the rule is nullified by this resolution, the SEC would not be able to put another rule in place that is substantially similar. This would create different reporting regimes directly contravening what companies have requested from the SEC. And, the SEC final rule accommodated industry concerns by including a generous phase-in period. U.S.-listed companies are not required to report until 2019. The rule also provides for case-by-case exemptions if covered companies face any implementation issues.

Therefore, the rule does not put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage, nor does it impose an unreasonable compliance burden.

I would also point out to my Republican colleagues the importance of the SEC's disclosure rule in protecting U.S. national security and energy security interests.

Specifically, it helps protect U.S. national security interests by helping prevent the corruption, secrecy, and government abuse that has catalyzed conflict, instability, and violent extremist movements in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond.

As ISIS demonstrated, nonstate actors can benefit from trading natural resources in order to finance their operations. Project-level disclosures in the rule will make hiding imports from nonstate actors more difficult, thereby limiting their ability to finance themselves with natural resource revenues.

Corruption and mismanagement of oil revenues destabilizes regions and leads to conflict. And, resource-rich countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Angola are considered to be among the top ten countries perceived to be the most corrupt according to Transparency International.

In addition, transparency of Russian companies and its extractive industry is critical. The SEC's rule would create transparency of Exxon and other company payments to the Russian Government. Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil are already disclosing under the U.K. rules, and BP has already reported payments to the Russian Government. The SEC's disclosure rule will make a crucial contribution as Russian citizens seek to follow the money received by their government.

A vote to roll back the SEC's resource extraction disclosures would be a vote to abandon U.S. leadership in the fight against global corruption.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 41.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets on the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee and of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

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

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

Include a number of articles in the Record. One is a Bloomberg article, entitled: ``Exxon Set for Early Victory As Congress to Rescind Payments Rule.'' The other one is a Politico Magazine article that says: ``Tillerson tried to get this rule killed. Now Congress is about to do it for him.'' The other article is a Washington Post article: ``One of House GOP's first targets for regulatory rollback is tops on the oil industry's wish list.''

[From Bloomberg Government, Jan. 30, 2017]

Exxon Set for Early Victory as Congress To Rescind Payments Rule

(By Catherine Traywick)

For years the oil industry has appealed to the executive

branch and courts to de-fang a U.S. rule forcing Exxon Mobil

Corp., Chevron Corp. and other producers to disclose their

payments to foreign governments.

Now, the Republican takeover in Washington is handling it

for them.

The House of Representatives is set to vote this week on

killing a Securities and Exchange Commission edict that

requires publication of overseas payments by oil, natural gas

and mining companies. The industry says the rule, part of the

2010 Dodd-Frank act, gives global rivals a competitive edge.

Backers say it will help keep payments to foreign nations in

government coffers, not private pockets.

``To roll it back would be a complete abdication of U.S.

initiative and leadership on issues of corruption,'' said

Daniel Kaufmann, president of the Natural Resource Governance

Institute, an International transparency watchdog.

The SEC rule, set to take effect next year, is one of a

series of Obama administration regulations Republican

lawmakers are trying to reverse using the Congressional

Review Act, a law that allows Congress to undo regulations

with a simple majority vote.

Congress also plans to vote this week to kill rules curbing

methane venting and mountain-top mining. To do so, both

chambers must pass a resolution disapproving the rules, which

the president would then have to sign. While President Barack

Obama would have reliably vetoed such resolutions, President

Donald Trump is likely to sign it.

Trump argues that curbing regulations is key to unleashing

investment by U.S. companies. He pledged to rescind two

existing regulations for each new one that's issued.

``The SEC's rule forces U.S. companies to disclose

proprietary information to its competitors while foreign

entities do not. This can give some large industry players an

advantage on future business projects,'' the American

Petroleum Institute, an industry group, said in a statement.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pledged in a Wall

Street Journal op-ed, to ``take the ax'' to the SEC rule,

which he characterized as ``an unreasonable compliance

burden.''

Transparency advocates dismiss that argument, pointing out

that the European Union and U.K. already require such

disclosures from some of Exxon's biggest competitors. BP Plc,

Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell are among those that annually

report taxes, bonuses and other payments to foreign

governments.

U.S. Advantage

Because Exxon and Chevron aren't listed on the European

exchanges, they don't have to comply with the EU disclosure

rules. That may give them an edge over other oil majors who

must report project-level payments, critics say.

In its 2015 disclosure to the UK, Rosneft reported $29.8

million in payments to the Russian Federation, Vietnam,

Brazil and Norway. In the same year, BP reported $15.2

billion in payments to 23 countries, Total disclosed $16.7

billion to 44 countries, and Shell reported $21.8 billion to

24 countries.

The idea behind the measure is simple: If foreign oil

companies disclose payments of $1 million to the government

of Country X, then the lawmakers and citizens of Country X

will know that $1 million should show up on the country's

budget. If less shows up, that means it has been diverted for

private use.

ExxonMobil and Chevron say they support financial

transparency in the oil sector. Both are members of an

advisory committee under the Interior Department that

oversees a voluntary corporate financial disclosure program.

sec comments

In comments to the SEC, the companies say they would

support a version of the regulation that protected company-

specific data. They argue that the current SEC rule would

make available potentially valuable company information to

state-owned competitors such as Saudi Aramco and Cnooc Ltd.,

neither of which are subject to the disclosure rules.

The American Petroleum Institute successfully challenged an

earlier version of the rule in court, forcing the SEC to

rewrite it.

API asked the agency to consider a reporting model that

detailed payments by resource type and production method--

omitting company-specific data. But, the SEC didn't adopt

that approach.

``The SEC largely ignored industry's comments,'' said Exxon

spokesman Bill Holbrook. While the final rule included

exemptions for acquired companies and exploratory activities,

it ``remains based on the EU's model and likely will

adversely affect the ability of publicly-traded companies to

compete globally,'' he said.

A Chevron spokesperson did not respond to a request for

comment.

pattern of behavior

Transparency advocates say they're concerned that the

repeal effort is part of a pattern of behavior among

Republican lawmakers.

``The GOP that tried to gut the ethics committee is trying

to gut a critical anti-corruption law,'' said Jana Morgan,

director of the advocacy group Publish What You Pay. ``It

sends a really disturbing message.''

The planned vote is generating tension among members of the

anti-corruption advisory committee on which Exxon, Chevron

and API sit. The panel, made up of representatives from

government, industry and civil society, publishes an annual

report detailing U.S. government revenues from the oil,

natural gas and mining industries, as well as voluntarily

reported payments made to the U.S. government from companies

in those sectors.

Civil society members of the committee say Exxon's

opposition to the SEC rule jeopardizes its standing on the

panel. At a meeting on Wednesday, members will discuss

whether Exxon, Chevron and API should keep their seats at

all.

``I really have to question whether it's appropriate for

companies like Exxon and Chevron and API to continue to sit

around this table,'' said Zorka Milin, an attorney with the

anti-corruption group Global Witness, and a member of the

advisory committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely surprised at how brazen our friends on the opposite side of the aisle are. They come here on this floor today with this rule that they would like to overturn. They have not been in committee. We have not had any hearings. They have moved very, very quickly to do exactly what all of these articles are discussing. They are concentrating on how to roll back disclosure that the SEC had developed a rule for for the oil industry.

And why are they trying to do this?

It is so interesting that this is happening on the same day that Mr. Tillerson has just been voted on to be the Secretary of State for the United States Government, the former CEO of Exxon; and I am going to talk about that connection, which should cause a lot of people to be concerned.

This government is not about disclosure. First of all, the President of the United States refuses to disclose his income tax returns. I didn't expect them to support disclosure of the oil industry to avoid corruption.

As a matter of fact, they have the audacity to come here today and say that it is too expensive to be honest. It costs too much money to these huge billionaire oil companies to disclose, and somehow that is going to prevent them from creating jobs. That is nonsense.

I would like to just show some connections here.

Both during his campaign and since his election, Donald Trump has surrounded himself with people who have extensive ties to Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government, and then we are going to see the connection between Tillerson and the Russian Government. First of all, let's look at this circle of people around him and their connection to Russia.

Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, was a paid lobbyist for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian politician in Ukraine who fled to Russia in 2014 and was subjected to U.S. sanctions related to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Manafort has also been involved in multimillion-dollar business deals with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs, which were reportedly the subject of an FBI inquiry.

The other person, Roger Stone, Trump's longtime friend, is reportedly under investigation for possible links with Russia. He has denied ever visiting Russia but admitted he had worked in Ukraine. Stone announced in a speech last summer that he had spoken to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and Stone predicted that there would be additional leaked documents, a prediction that came true within weeks.

Let's go to another person. Michael Flynn, Trump's National Security Adviser, did a paid series of events in Moscow, including a speech and appearance at a party for RT, a Kremlin-funded TV station, where he was photographed sitting next to Vladimir Putin.

Trump's nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, was a business partner of Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch and Putin ally, in a major financial project involving the Bank of Cyprus.

Finally, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee and now the person who has been voted by the Senate for Secretary of State, signed a multibillion-dollar agreement with Russia in 2011 on behalf of ExxonMobil for an oil drilling project in the Arctic. The project was brought to a halt in 2014 as a result of the sanctions that were imposed on Russia in response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

Putin personally awarded Tillerson the Order of Friendship in 2013. Don't forget, this President talked about lifting sanctions. Oh, you can see the connection here.

In addition to that, I just want to point out that it comes as little surprise that ExxonMobil is one of the leading companies in the fight against the global initiative to enhance the transparency of extractive industry payments made to foreign governments, given its long history of engaging in questionable transactions with governments of oil-rich countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, and Chad.

The move to eviscerate the rule issued under section 1504 that we are talking about here today makes clear that Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration believe that profits are more important than people and that fighting corruption is less important than enriching oil, gas, and mining companies.

Without the SEC's extractive industry transparency rule, citizens around the world will lose a critical tool for holding their governments and corporations accountable for how natural resource proceeds are used.

Let's talk about Nigeria. Just days before the Securities and Exchange Commission issued its final rule pursuant to section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Global Witness, a highly respected and good governance NGO, issued a report detailing how a major oil deal, as I referred to earlier, struck by ExxonMobil with the Nigerian Government, was being investigated by Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, an agency charged with uncovering high-level corruption.

The investigation relates to a widely reported deal in which the Nigerian Government in 2009 agreed to renew a

40 percent share of three oil licenses from Mobil Producing Nigeria, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil. This is all about the billionaires. Just follow the dollars and you can see what this is all about.

Little town, America, needs to know that this is not about them. This is about these billionaires, and they will go to any extent to continue to steal from them.

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

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

Rep. Jeb HensarlingR-TX-5 · Feb 1, 2017

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 71, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the joint resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 41, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan, (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services.

This resolution disapproves a burdensome and controversial Securities and Exchange Commission rule that places an unfair burden on American public companies that is not applied to many of their foreign competitors.

Virtually every day we hear from many Americans about how this economy is just not working for them. It is just not working for working Americans like Keith from Dallas in my district who wrote me: ``I am 53. I have a grown son who lives with me. It seems like the cost of everything keeps going up, yet wages do not keep pace.''

The economic opportunities of Keith and millions of Americans like him are not helped by top-down, politically driven regulations that give many foreign companies an advantage over American public companies.

That is exactly what this Securities and Exchange Commission regulation that we are talking about today does. It forces American public companies to disclose inexpensive proprietary information that can actually be obtained by their foreign competitors, including state- owned companies in China and Russia. This is just one regulation out of thousands and thousands that are burdening our companies, our job creators, and are costing our households, by one estimate, over $14,000 a year, Mr. Speaker.

Even though this is a Securities and Exchange rule, section 1504 of Dodd-Frank has nothing to do with investor protection nor anything else we were told the Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to do. As the acting chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission has said, this rule ``neither reforms Wall Street nor provides consumer protection and it is wholly unrelated, and largely contrary, to the Commission's core mission.''

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the SEC estimates that ongoing compliance costs for this rule could reach as high as $591 million per year. It is just an outrage, Mr. Speaker. That is $591 million every year that could better be used to hire thousands more Americans in an industry where the average pay is 50 percent higher than the U.S. average. Literally we could be talking about 10,000 jobs on the line for this ill-advised rule. This is significant, given that millions of Americans, like Keith from my district, have not seen their wages increase while our economy has been stymied under the Obama administration.

Now, for those who claim that somehow by rolling back this rule, that this undermines anticorruption efforts, let me remind everyone that Mr. Huizenga's resolution, that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which the SEC and the Department of Justice administer, already makes it illegal to pay former government officials when it comes to winning or maintaining business opportunities.

To further prove the point, Mr. Speaker, just this year the SEC has brought enforcement actions or settled four separate cases for violations of this anticorruption law. So even without this SEC rule, fraud will still be fraud, corruption will still be corruption, and both will still be illegal. The SEC and the Department of Justice will still have the authority to vigorously pursue those who break the law and hold them accountable, as they well should. So no one, Mr. Speaker, should fall for this false argument of our opponents.

Let's also remember that this joint resolution does not repeal section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Rather, it vacates a flawed SEC rule that mimics a previous rule that was already struck down by a U.S. District Court. It is a rule that by the SEC's own estimates has taken 51 employees over 20,000 hours to promulgate, defend, and repromulgate. Fifty-one employees, 20,000 hours that could have been directed at rooting out Ponzi schemes, that could have been used to promote capital formation or make our capital markets more efficient.

Furthermore, this rule still goes far beyond the statute passed by Congress and mandates public specialized disclosures that cost more and more, and is more burdensome than the law requires.

So, Mr. Speaker, for those who religiously defend the Dodd-Frank law, they should be in vigorous support of what Mr. Huizenga brings to the floor today because the rule flies in the face of the Dodd-Frank Act. So when an agency exceeds its statutory authority, it is no longer regulating, Mr. Speaker, it is legislating. And all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be able to agree that when the executive branch acts in such a manner, Congress has a duty, a duty under article I of the Constitution, to check this executive overreach.

As such, this House should wholeheartedly support Mr. Huizenga's resolution. It simply tells the SEC to go back to the drawing board, comply with the Dodd-Frank Act, and come up with a better role that will not put American public companies at an unfair disadvantage and cost us jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of our Capital Markets Subcommittee and the author of H.J. Res. 41.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the sub-chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no other speakers at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the American people are watching this debate because it will certainly confirm their decision to deny Democrats control of the House, to deny them control of the Senate, and to deny them control of the White House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, their words may claim they care about jobs, but their policies don't. That is what we are here to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is jobs, and we are talking about a rule promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission that can cost $591 million a year and can cost us 10,000 jobs.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have been clearly tone deaf to the pleas of the American people. They want to go back to work. They are tired of part-time jobs. They are tired of stagnant paychecks. They are tired of decimated savings. That is why they have turned to the Republican Party, and that is why we are going to help give them a healthy economy with policies, including rolling back this foolish rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission, a rule that in a previous iteration has already been struck down by courts.

Now, you listen to the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and you hear all this talk about corruption. It appears that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are ignorant that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is already in the Federal code. For those who do not know, I have done the homework for you: 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1. Look it up yourself.

So, Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with corruption. Rarely has more of a red herring come across the House floor. Let me tell you what this is really about, Mr. Speaker. It is about a radical, leftist, and elitist agenda that promotes narrow special interests and has declared war on carbon-based industry and energy and the industry and jobs that are represented by it. That is what this is really about.

By the way, why is the Securities and Exchange Commission involved in this? Why isn't this--listening to them--part of the Homeland Security Department or maybe part of the Department of Defense? What will they have the SEC do next, deliver the mail? Will they become our air traffic controllers?

Meanwhile, there are Ponzi schemes taking place in America. Meanwhile, we have markets that are not efficient creating the jobs that the American people demand.

Let's vote for jobs. Let's vote to get America back to work. Let's vote down this leftist, elitist agenda declaring war on carbon-based jobs. Let's vote for H.J. Res. 41.

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

Rep. Bill HuizengaR-MI-2 · Feb 1, 2017

Mr. Speaker, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act was like many other provisions that were ultimately included in the sprawling law. They had absolutely no relationship to the underlying cause of the…

Mr. Speaker, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act was like

many other provisions that were ultimately included in the sprawling law. They had absolutely no relationship to the underlying cause of the financial and housing crisis.

However, some have used the financial crisis to hijack Federal securities law in order to push a socially motivated agenda. Specifically, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission to annually report payments such as taxes, royalties, fees, production entitlements, and those types of things made to a foreign or the U.S. Federal government relating to the commercial development of minerals, oils, and natural gas.

Companies subject to section 1504 must report the type and total amounts of these payments made for each project, as well as the type and total amounts of payments made to each government. These payments cover, as I said, taxes and other things that are really business expenses.

While this may be a laudable goal, using Federal securities law and the SEC to enforce social issues is inconsistent with the SEC's core mission and completely inappropriate. Just to remind everyone, the SEC's mission by law is to: One, protect investors; two, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and three, facilitate capital formation. I would liken what they are doing by having the SEC put this rule in place sort of like requiring your police department to be in charge of road repair, too. It is just not their expertise.

The SEC recognized this fact and stated that section 1504 ``appears designed primarily to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives,'' not investor protection or capital formation. Notwithstanding the merits of the underlying policy goals, conducting American foreign policy is not what Congress created the SEC to do. In fact, just moments ago, the U.S. Senate confirmed Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State, and I would suggest that we let him direct our foreign policy. With all due respect to the commissioners and the SEC staff, none of them are really foreign policy experts.

As we debate this resolution, let's be clear on what this isn't about. Some have tried to argue that a vote to vacate this provision is a vote for corruption somehow. This couldn't be further from the truth. Now, I understand and sympathize with the sense and the feeling of this that this rule makes supporters feel better about themselves, but it does not solve the real world issues. This foreign rule that has been brought up is really like comparing apples and oranges with the foreign rules versus this particular rule. And if we allow them to rewrite this particular rule, we might actually mirror what the EU and what other foreign governments are doing.

Despite the claims to the contrary, H.J. Res. 41 does nothing to undermine the ability of the SEC and the Justice Department to police against foreign corruption. In fact, both of these agencies still have, at their disposal, Federal laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign officials.

And even without this SEC extraction rule in effect, fraud will still be fraud and corruption will still be corruption. Both will still be illegal activities that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Voting for this resolution is a vote to right the ship. This is a vote to reset the regulatory process. Congress needs to send this flawed regulation back to the SEC drawing board and instruct the SEC to get the provision right by promulgating an appropriate rule under section 1504.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will point out, though, what my resolution does, is it directs the SEC to go back to the drawing board. It is not our job to write the rule. You are asking for that proposal. The SEC wrote a rule; it got struck down by the courts. They got sued again.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to write a rule. I am not sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts would be happy with it. I am not sure that the SEC would be happy with it.

Again, having that debate here in the well of the House, I was not here for the writing of Dodd-Frank. I am dealing with the echo effects of it, and that is what we are trying to do right now. So rather than us having that, I put it back to the SEC.

Rep. Carolyn B. MaloneyD-NY-12 · Feb 1, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and for her leadership in so many areas, including her leadership on this joint resolution. I rise today in strong opposition to the…

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and for her leadership in so many areas, including her leadership on this joint resolution.

I rise today in strong opposition to the resolution, which would repeal an SEC anticorruption rule. I fail to understand why anyone in this body would want to repeal something that helps us fight corruption.

The SEC rule would require companies registered in the United States to disclose the payments that they make to foreign governments for the development of oil, natural gas, or other minerals.

Unfortunately, there is a long and very sad history of corruption where Big Oil or mining companies strike deals with foreign governments to extract their natural resources. Too often, the money from the oil or mining company ended up going to pay bribes to corrupt politicians and not to benefit the ordinary citizens of the country.

The SEC rule is intended to bring some basic transparency to these deals--that is all we are talking about, transparency--by requiring U.S. companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments--who the payments went to, how much they paid, who in the government got the money that should be going to the people.

It tells the people and the country where this natural resources money is going. This is just common sense, and it is outrageous and unbelievable to me that anyone would oppose simple transparency rules that combat corruption.

I have been a long-time supporter of this rule. I spoke in favor of it during the Dodd-Frank debate, and I sent a letter to the SEC urging them to finalize this rule as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter, on which I was joined by roughly 58 of my colleagues.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2014.

Re Implementation of Section 1504.

Hon. Mary Jo White,

Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, let's also be clear about what the SEC's rules do not do. They do not place any restrictions on who companies can pay money to. It doesn't restrict how much money they can pay or what they can pay for. It doesn't stop corruption; it just simply says you have to report it so that the people in the country--and everyone--knows what is going on.

In fact, there was bipartisan support for this rule. The amendment to Dodd-Frank that required this rule was known as the Cardin-Lugar amendment because it was cosponsored by Republican Senator Dick Lugar. Senator Lugar was a long-time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so he understood the negative impact that these corrupt deals could have on developing countries.

The only reason--and I repeat, the only reason--to vote for this resolution is to help corrupt governments steal money from their people.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat this phrase since people were knocking me out of order.

The absolute only reason they should vote for this--and I want to warn those on both sides of the aisle--is to help corrupt governments steal money from their people; so I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Now, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pointed out that the foreign and corrupt rule will take care of this, but the foreign and corrupt rule only covers bribery. It doesn't cover unjust enrichment. It doesn't cover governments stealing from themselves.

Use of the Congressional Review Act to strike the rule would prohibit the Commission from promulgating any rule that is ``substantially similar'' to that rule, effectively preventing it from ever fulfilling its statutory mandate in the Dodd-Frank Act, contrary to the will of Congress.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote.

Rep. Bill FosterD-IL-11 · Feb 1, 2017

I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 41 and in support of the SEC rule requiring resource extraction companies to disclose payments to…

I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 41 and in support of the SEC rule requiring resource extraction companies to disclose payments to governments.

Historically, payment for resources is a huge source of corruption in developing countries, which, for most of us, is morally abhorrent; but what I want to talk about is the competitive advantage that we gain when we embrace the principles of the democratic rule of law, transparency, and morality that our financial system depends upon. We passed Dodd-Frank to strengthen our financial system in a time of crisis but also to make it more transparent and effective for American consumers and investors.

Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank directed the SEC to publish a rule requiring issuers to disclose the types and amounts of payments for each project and to each government annually. The provision improved disclosures made to financial regulators and to investors.

Private and public institutional investors--representing trillions of dollars invested on behalf of American families--voiced support to the SEC in favor of the rule. There are two main reasons for this support from institutional investors:

First, all investors want to be able to review payments to all governments, to assess the exposure the issuer may have to corruption risk. The SEC has jurisdiction over compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and investors need to know whether fines for potentially corrupt payments could be levied against firms in which they are considering investing.

Investors should always have the right to know material information about the firms, and systemic noncompliance with the law is always material. It should not take an event of noncompliance that has been uncovered by the regulators to inform investors when simple transparency requirements, like the annual reporting of payments, can alert them to the risk.

Secondly, some investors may simply want to stay away from investments in firms that make payments to certain governments. Many resource-rich nations in the developing world lack a democratic rule of law and are often governed by oppressive regimes that exploit their land and environment, extracting resources for their rulers' financial gain at the expense of their citizens. Investors have the right to know this information because they own the company and may feel a moral responsibility for its action.

For these two reasons, extractive payments are information crucial to an investor's analysis of an issuer's securities.

The United States equity markets are the most efficient in the world because we have strong disclosure laws and strong enforcement at the SEC. The disclosure of payments made to foreign governments is a relevant factor in valuing securities and is crucial to avoiding asymmetries in information, which can and will be exploited. These disclosures actually enable the market to police an issuer by punishing excessive payments to questionable governments with a devaluation of its equities.

In short, there are three market-based reasons to disclose payments to foreign governments:

First, these disclosures promote market integrity; second, they provide investors with crucial information for valuing securities; third, they enable investors to make ethical values-based decisions on where they allocate their resources--a right that we should be enhancing rather than eroding.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 41.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued March 17, 2017

115th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1613

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 17, 2017

Mr. McKinley (for himself and Mr. Welch) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to transfer certain funds to the Multiemployer Health Benefit Plan, and for other purposes.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Helping Ensure Long-Term Protection for Coal Miners Health Care Act of 2017 or the HELP for Coal Miners Health Care Act of 2017.

Inclusion of certain retirees in the Multiemployer Health Benefit Plan

(a)

In general

Section 402(h)(2)(C) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(h)(2)(C)) is amended—

(1)

by striking clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv); and

(2)

by inserting after clause (i) the following:

(ii)

Calculation of excess

The excess determined under clause (i) shall be calculated by taking into account only—

(I)

those beneficiaries actually enrolled in the Plan as of the date of the enactment of the HELP for Coal Miners Health Care Act of 2017 who are eligible to receive health benefits under the Plan on the first day of the calendar year for which the transfer is made, other than those beneficiaries enrolled in the Plan under the terms of a participation agreement with the current or former employer of such beneficiaries; and

(II)

those beneficiaries whose health benefits, defined as those benefits payable, following death or retirement or upon a finding of disability, directly by an employer in the bituminous coal industry under a coal wage agreement (as defined in section 9701(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), would be denied or reduced as a result of a bankruptcy proceeding commenced in 2012 or 2015.

For purposes of subclause (I), a beneficiary enrolled in the Plan as of the date of the enactment of the HELP for Coal Miners Health Care Act of 2017 shall be deemed to have been eligible to receive health benefits under the Plan on January 1, 2017.

(iii)

Eligibility of certain retirees

Individuals referred to in clause (ii)(II) shall be treated as eligible to receive health benefits under the Plan.

(iv)

Requirements for transfer

The amount of the transfer otherwise determined under this subparagraph for a fiscal year shall be reduced by any amount transferred for the fiscal year to the Plan, to pay benefits required under the Plan, from a voluntary employees' beneficiary association established as a result of a bankruptcy proceeding described in clause (ii).

(b)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall apply to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2016.

(c)

GAO audit

Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the Multiemployer Health Benefit Plan described in section 402(h)(2)(C)(i) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(h)(2)(C)(i)) and shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report analyzing whether Federal funds are being spent appropriately by such Plan.

Clarification of financing obligations

(a)

In general

Subsection (a) of section 9704 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(1)

by striking paragraph (3),

(2)

by striking three premiums and inserting two premiums, and

(3)

by striking , plus at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting a period.

(b)

Conforming amendments

(1)

Section 9704 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(A)

by striking subsection (d), and

(B)

by redesignating subsections (e) through (j) as subsections (d) through (i), respectively.

(2)

Subsection (d) of section 9704 of such Code, as so redesignated, is amended—

(A)

by striking 3 separate accounts for each of the premiums described in subsections (b), (c), and (d) in paragraph (1) and inserting 2 separate accounts for each of the premiums described in subsections (b) and (c), and

(B)

by striking or the unassigned beneficiaries premium account in paragraph (3)(B).

(3)

Subclause (I) of section 9703(b)(2)(C)(ii) of such Code is amended by striking 9704(e)(3)(B)(i) and inserting 9704(d)(3)(B)(i).

(4)

Paragraph (3) of section 9705(a) of such Code is amended—

(A)

by striking the unassigned beneficiary premium under section 9704(a)(3) and in subparagraph (B), and

(B)

by striking 9704(i)(1)(B) and inserting 9704(h)(1)(B).

(5)

Paragraph (2) of section 9711(c) of such Code is amended—

(A)

by striking 9704(j)(2) in subparagraph (A)(i) and inserting 9704(i)(2),

(B)

by striking 9704(j)(2)(B) in subparagraph (B) and inserting 9704(i)(2)(B), and

(C)

by striking 9704(j) and inserting 9704(i).

(6)

Paragraph (4) of section 9712(d) of such Code is amended by striking 9704(j) and inserting 9704(i).

(c)

Elimination of additional backstop premium

(1)

In general

Paragraph (1) of section 9712(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (C).

(2)

Conforming amendment

Paragraph (2) of section 9712(d) of such Code is amended—

(A)

by striking subparagraph (B),

(B)

by striking , and at the end of subparagraph (A) and inserting a period, and

(C)

by striking shall provide for— and all that follows through annual adjustments and inserting shall provide for annual adjustments.

(d)

Effective date

The amendments made by this section shall apply to plan years beginning after September 30, 2016.

Sense of the House of Representatives

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should work with the administration to support economic growth in Appalachia and other coal communities by promoting growth-oriented economic development efforts.