Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1343) to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise its rules so as to increase the threshold amount for requiring issuers to provide certain disclosures relating to compensatory benefit plans.

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, 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

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

H.R. 1343, Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2017, eliminates important disclosures that private companies must provide to their employees in the event they are compensating those employees with stock.

This bill would limit transparency. If companies want to pay their employees in stocks, they should have to simply disclose to their workers the risks associated with those investments.

Currently, private companies can provide up to $5 million worth of stock compensation annually to their employees and are not required to provide any financial disclosure. This bill would lift that cap to $10 million.

If companies choose to provide an employee with stock compensation, they should be required to inform that employee of the appropriate financial information, benefits, and the risks associated with that investment, including 2 years of company financial statements. All of this information is commonly available to typical investors.

Let's be clear: this stock is compensation for their work. Employees deserve to understand the value of their compensation prior to accepting it. They deserve the same protections that other investors would get.

I agree with Professor Mercer Bullard, who is a professor of law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, who testified before the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee voicing his concerns about the bill. In his testimony, he noted that to take advantage of the terms of this legislation, an issuer would have to have at least $34 million in total assets. Surely, such minimal disclosures are not too burdensome for those sort of companies.

I do also understand that some proponents of this legislation argue that such an exemption is needed because disclosure of company information to employees runs the risk that confidential information could be leaked to competitors.

Employees with access to such information could simply be subject to nondisclosure agreements, which are typical today. Indeed, nondisclosure agreements are a simple solution that protects the company, but does not deny the employees the right to understand the worth of, or the risks associated with, the compensation they are receiving. Unfortunately, this bill would limit that transparency and those protections.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a member of the Committee on Financial Services, my classmate, and a cosponsor of this legislation.

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

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

I appreciate the comments of my colleague and friend. I do, however, disagree that the question here derives from a lack of understanding of the legislation. I think it is entirely possible--in fact, I would suggest that it is likely--that members of a body such as this, from 435 distinct districts and different experiences, can look at the same information, fully understand it, and come to different conclusions as to what sort of policy ought to be in place, and that is where I have landed on this particular subject. I fully understand.

I also think it is important to note that we can't on one hand say that this is not about disclosure and on the other hand mention that these disclosure requirements could have a negative impact and encourage or discourage companies from engaging in the practice of awarding employees with stock as a part of their compensation.

It is a question of disclosure. This legislation is about the disclosure requirements that should be applied in this case. That is really what we have heard from both sides of this argument: where should that disclosure requirement be, and at what level should it be incurred?

What I would say is--and I think this is important to note, speaking for myself--I know many other members of the Financial Services Committee and Members of this body that may oppose this legislation feel strongly that the direction toward awarding employees with stock ownership is a positive direction. It is something that my friend, Mr. Delaney, has not only advocated for, but has practiced in his own private sector experience. It is a positive thing for a company and it is a positive thing for the employees.

The only point that I continue to drive home and that others have reiterated is that it is important that employees understand the nature of the stock that is being awarded to them and that the disclosure requirements make clear employees are aware of the compensation and its true value. That is really the point of my objection.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter I received from Public Citizen, which articulates some of these same arguments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

I would just point out again that the position many of us are taking does not contradict the principles that are being articulated. In fact, the law does not preclude any company from awarding stock as compensation at any level. It simply requires that information be provided so that those individuals who are receiving that compensation have the information and have the resources to understand the value of that compensation. I just want to reiterate that because it is important that the position not be mischaracterized as one that wants to dampen the ability of companies to reward their employees with stock or use that as a form of compensation. It is just important that they have transparency in that process so people who are receiving that compensation understand its true value.

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 the balance of my time to close.

I have heard a number of my colleagues point to the red tape and the unnecessary burdens that are placed on a company that wishes to provide stock compensation.

Let me be clear about what it is that we would require. This is what is required for a company that exceeds the threshold: That they provide a copy of the compensation plan or a contract, if they disclose that; a copy of a summary plan description, if it is an ERISA retirement plan or, if not, a summary of the plan's material terms; risk factors associated with the stock; and the company's most recent financial statements from the last 2 years, which don't need to be audited.

This is important information for anyone receiving stock as compensation in order to understand the value of that stock and not a burdensome requirement on a company, particularly a company of the size that would be required under the increased threshold that is being proposed by this law.

If there is any aspect of this debate which is common sense, it is common sense that a person receiving compensation ought to have information that tells them the value of that compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important debate and discussion. It is one that this body is well-served by taking on.

I do agree, as I said, that this is an important direction for us to take as a nation. And it certainly makes sense that, in order for us to fully all participate in the economy, employee ownership is a value. It creates more productive companies, more competitive companies. It provides better compensation, and, as has been pointed out, it creates more stable organizations less likely to lay people off, more likely to be sustainable companies. That is all good, and that is important.

It comes down to the question of transparency. Employees deserve to know the state of their employer's finances, if they are to accept stock in lieu of monetary compensation. They deserve no less protection than other investors in the company.

We shouldn't fear that kind of transparency. A company that wants its employees to accept stock instead of monetary compensation should embrace this sort of compensation. If they want to empower those employees and they want to make them a part of the company, they should provide them with

the information that helps them understand the value of that ownership.

Transparency is important for individuals to make informed choices, not informed choices coming from a dictate from Washington but information that they have the right to have. It empowers them with knowledge that allows them to make choices about the form of compensation that they would accept.

That is what this legislation really is about, and that is why I oppose the legislation and encourage my colleagues to join me in that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, then-President Obama said: ``If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.''

Unfortunately, at least 4.7 million Americans now know that was simply not true. ObamaCare was a takeover of the American healthcare system. The law's mandates have been burdensome, destroying 300,000 small-business jobs and forcing an estimated 10,000 small businesses to close. Premiums are skyrocketing, and choices are dwindling.

House Resolution 241 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1304, the Self-Insurance Protection Act, an important part of the Republican effort to repair the damage ObamaCare has done to insurance markets. More than 150 million Americans--62 percent of workers--receive their health insurance from their employer. In fact, almost all firms with at least 200 or more employees offer health benefits, and just over half of smaller firms with 3 to 199 employees offer health insurance.

Overwhelmingly, Americans and their employers like this system of employer-sponsored health care; and for many years, employer health plans have been successfully regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.

Typically, small and large employers offer healthcare coverage to employees either in self-funded arrangements or purchase fully insured plans from an insurer.

Under self-insurance plans, employers cover the costs of their employees' medical expenses. Employers can either process claims in- house or work with a third-party administrator to oversee and implement the plans.

ERISA regulates both fully insured and self-insured plans, but only self-insured plans are exempt from the patchwork of mandates imposed under State insurance law. Furthermore, employer-sponsored self-insured plans are not subject to the same requirements under ObamaCare, as are fully insured plans.

Thus, self-insurance plans are desirable and successful because they are free from many government restrictions and regulations and allow employers to tailor their plans to meet the unique needs of their employees and to innovate.

For example, these plans do not require employees to purchase government-mandated coverage options that their employees do not want or need. This helps lower costs for working families while ensuring access to high-quality health care.

In hearings before the Education and the Workforce Committee, on which I sit, we heard testimony that today self-insurance is often the only way employers can afford coverage, thanks to the burdens of ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, in Alabama, we like to say: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Prior to ObamaCare, there were problems in our Nation's healthcare system, but the successful model of employer self-insurance wasn't one of them. Today, self-insurance remains perhaps the best way for employers to provide health care to their workers.

Unfortunately, the prior administration seemed intent on disrupting this successful healthcare model. Rather than leave self-insurance plans alone, they repeatedly explored ways to impose new regulations that would negatively impact self-insurance. Specifically, the Obama administration wanted to disrupt the model by regulating stop-loss insurance and treating it as if it were health insurance.

Employers who self-insure often purchase stop-loss insurance to cover large medical claims and to protect against the financial risks such claims can pose. Despite decades of Federal regulation on employer health plans under ERISA, stop-loss insurance has never been regulated by the Federal Government. That is because stop-loss insurance is actually a financial risk management tool designed to protect employers from catastrophic claim expenses. Remarkably, in a regulatory grab, the Obama administration tried to reclassify it as ``group health insurance.''

Mr. Speaker, if the last 7 years have taught us anything, it is that more Federal control over health insurance does not make health care more affordable for the American people. Stop-loss insurance is not health insurance, and it should not be regulated like it is.

The Self-Insurance Protection Act simply updates the law to make clear that Federal bureaucrats cannot redefine stop-loss insurance as group health insurance. This is about reaffirming longstanding policies and ensuring workers continue to have access to a health insurance model that is proven to lower costs and provide flexibility to consumers.

This bill will provide workers and employers alike with the regulatory certainty that they have desperately wanted and needed. They shouldn't have to worry about unelected Federal bureaucrats stepping in and destroying their healthcare system.

To put it simply, this bill is necessary in order to prevent future bureaucratic overreach that would destroy the self-insurance model that has been so successful for so many working families.

I also think this bill is an area where we should have some bipartisan cooperation. It passed out of the Education and the Workforce Committee earlier this year on a voice vote, and I hope it earns bipartisan support here in the full House.

As we continue our efforts to increase choices, lower costs, and provide better healthcare options for working families, let us not forget to shore up and protect the health insurance programs that are actually working and getting the job done.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 241 and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida said that the Moon is not the Sun. Well, stop-loss insurance is not health insurance, but the Obama administration tried to make it so. Because they tried to make it so, we need to put into statutory law what I think we all agree on both sides of the aisle not only is the law but should be the law so that there is no question about it in the future. It is unfortunate we have to do that, but, because of some of the actions of the prior administration, it is necessary.

He talked about the strong foundation of the ACA, ObamaCare. That foundation is crumbling beneath the program. We now have more insurers jumping out of exchanges. My home State of Alabama is down to one carrier on the exchange. Soon enough, we may find that, in Alabama, like some other States, there are no carriers. This isn't a foundation. It is a foundation made of sand--and the sand is leaking out. Something has to be done.

Today's bill is a step--not the only step--in that direction. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with what we are doing here in substance, and I wish we would just come together and get this bill done so that we can assure that the self-insured smaller employers and larger employers have the protection that they need for the working families that participate in their programs.

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

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for his remarks. I completely agree with him. Both parties should be working together to make sure that we provide what we can reasonably for the health care of the people of America, and we should be collaborating, not just in this House across the aisle but in the Senate as well. I think it is a good place to start right here with this bill because we really don't have a substantive disagreement about this bill.

Both sides understand that stop-loss insurance is not health insurance. It is just the Obama administration tried to turn it into that. This bill would stop that and bring the certainty we need back to these self-insured plans that mainly small employers have and make sure that we have in place for working families across America a system that is working for them and maintain that.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join with us, will collaborate with us, and that our colleagues in the other House, in the Senate, will do as well and pass this legislation because it truly is bipartisan in substance and, I hope today, in the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 241 and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 240 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Americans have always been a people known for taking ownership. We take ownership of our lives and livelihoods, working hard to provide for our families. We take ownership in our communities, setting standards of conduct. We take ownership in all our political process, voting for the right candidates. We have even taken ownership in our world, fighting evil actors and regimes to maintain peace.

H.R. 1343, the bill we are discussing today, allows employees to take ownership in their companies. This is the American way.

Under SEC rule 701, private companies can offer their own securities to employees, enabling those employees to take a stake in the company. This is a great deal for both businessowners and employees. I doubt either side of the aisle would disagree.

Rule 701 allows employers to better recruit talented employees and pay them without having to borrow money or sell securities. For some companies, especially younger ones, compensating employees through equity is vital for survival.

These younger companies need the top talent but often can't pay the top salaries. Rule 701 allows them to offer potential recruits a tradeoff: accept a lower salary now for more equity in the company later.

By giving the employees a stake in the company, businessowners reward the employees for their continued hard

work and innovation. Workers have an opportunity to buy into the mission and future of the company. They have the opportunity to reap what they sow, making their work more meaningful and fulfilling.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1343 simply raises the reporting threshold for companies who issue securities to their employees as compensatory benefits. Right now, any company that issues more than $5 million of securities in a yearlong period faces significant reporting requirements, including financial statements and disclosure of risk factors. These requirements cost small businesses time and money, making them less likely to issue stock as compensation for their employees. That is why this legislation moves the threshold up to $10 million.

The original $5 million threshold was added to rule 701 in 1999 and hasn't been updated since. By easing the threshold and indexing it to inflation every 5 years, we allow companies to increase the amount of stock they offer to employees. Additionally, raising the threshold will prevent private companies from having to disclose confidential financial information.

America is known for taking ownership, but we are also known for innovation. Our technology industry, especially, has propelled our economy and quality of life forward. But so many great tech companies started as small startups, struggling along from month to month before the financial rewards of their hard work could be achieved.

Thinking about the young companies right now that have grand innovative visions for improving our quality of life, this legislation will help them thrive. The employees already pour so much of their livelihoods into the venture. This bill will reward those workers with equity so that their perseverance and investment will pay off.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to discuss the broad support for this bill. I indicated earlier that both sides of the aisle can support this legislation, and I want to highlight that bipartisan support for the bill.

H.R. 1343 has equal numbers of Republican and Democratic sponsors. Further, the bill passed out of the Financial Services Committee 48-11. A majority of the Democrats on the committee supported the bill. A similar bill passed with a bipartisan vote last Congress, with more than two dozen Democrats joining Republicans to pass the bill. And in the Senate, this same basic proposal passed the Senate Banking Committee by a voice vote just a few weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to see why this proposal is generating so much bipartisan support. With a higher threshold, companies can focus their time on innovating and creating jobs instead of filling out paperwork. Employees, meanwhile, can take a stake in their company and their own future. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond briefly to my friend from Colorado's comments about the nature of the rule. The Rules Committee did make in order every single germane rule that was offered to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we often talk about coming together in support of good policy. We all have friends on both sides of the aisle, and we routinely promise to work together on issues upon which we agree. Most of us speak in front of our constituents about our desire to work with the other party. However, we all know that Americans perceive us to be constantly engaged in partisan conflict.

It is unfortunate that we are not able to work together on good legislation more often. It is understandable that Americans feel disappointed by Washington's partisan sniping. But here before us today is a bill with wide bipartisan support. Not only has it already received numerous bipartisan votes, there were only two amendments offered to the bill. One amendment was withdrawn because it was not germane. The other amendment from my good friend from Colorado and the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis, is simply requiring a report.

Why is this bill so noncontroversial?

I believe it has to do with the process by which we received this legislation. The Committee on Financial Services held hearings as far back as 2015 in which problems with the SEC rule were raised by small- business owners.

The sponsor of this bill, Mr. Hultgren, worked with his Democratic

colleagues on the committee and introduced a proposal to reform the SEC rule. Chairman Hensarling held a full committee markup last month which allowed for full debate and amendment, and now we have the bill on the floor this week. Good process produces good policy. But perhaps equally as important, good process helps instill faith in this institution. When Americans see us take up an issue, hear their concerns, and work together to find a commonsense solution, they will trust us to tackle even bigger problems.

This may not be the largest legislative product that Chairman Hensarling and the Financial Services Committee produce in this Congress, but, nevertheless, it is an important work that is helping us solve problems faced by American small businesses. This legislation ensures that the employees of America's small businesses can take ownership in their companies and their jobs. It reduces regulatory encroachment on America's job creators and helps our small businesses expand and grow.

I thank Representative Hultgren for bringing this bill before us. I commend Chairman Hensarling for working with both sides of the aisle and for following a good process on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.