A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to "Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights".

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 30, a Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval to nullify a popular and sensible rule issued by the Biden-Harris administration last year.

Workers should be able to invest their retirement savings in a way that reflects their values, such as combating climate change, without sacrificing investment returns.

That is why the Biden-Harris administration issued a rule to clarify that retirement plan fiduciaries may consider the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, and governance factors, or ESG factors, when they make investment decisions for participants in retirement plans.

Now, to be clear, this rule is not an ESG mandate.

Additionally, the rule does not change the fiduciary standard to which professionals who make investment decisions for retirement plans are bound. They must still prioritize the interests of retirement plan participants and cannot sacrifice investment returns to pursue ESG goals.

Let's be clear. Consideration of ESG factors is not at odds with making a profit. In fact, workers' profit is still central, but if a company has negative externalities, such as carbon-intensive business practices, vulnerability to sea level rise, high liability risks, or a record of mistreating workers who may go on strike, its stock could suffer in the long term.

Workers often contribute to their retirement for decades before drawing down on their savings, so it makes sense that retirement plan beneficiaries must consider the long-term time horizon when making investment decisions.

Finally, there is widespread support for the Biden-Harris administration's rule. Of the comment letters submitted on the proposed rule, 83 percent of the letters submitted by institutions like corporations, financial firms, and labor organizations supported the rule.

Over 97 percent of the letters submitted by individuals supported the rule. Simply put, the Biden-Harris rule reflects the best interests of the American people and our economy.

We should not get rid of this popular and reasonable rule by this resolution. The rule just simply allows retirement plan fiduciaries to appropriately consider ESG factors.

Retirement fiduciaries, not House Republicans, are best positioned and bound by law to make prudent investment decisions on behalf of retirement savers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), the co-chair of the Congressional Sustainable Investment Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas), a co-chair of the Congressional Sustainable Investment Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, during this debate, we have heard a lot about ESG investing. It is clear there is a difference of opinion on it, but whether Members of Congress see things the same way is not the point.

What matters is that the Biden-Harris rule puts the decisionmaking when it comes to considering ESG factors where it belongs, in the hands of retirement plan fiduciaries who are best positioned and bound by law, which has not changed, to act prudently on behalf of plan participants. That is where the decisionmaking should stay.

They, not Members of Congress, know what is in the best interests of their plan participants, and they are bound by their fiduciary responsibilities to do the right thing.

Now, when supporters say that a fiduciary should not consider nonpecuniary factors, they ignore the fact that ESG factors can, in fact, be pecuniary, because often ESG factors, such as sea level rise, can have a profound effect on the value of the investment. Those who recognize this should be able to make reasonable investments based on that knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record several letters from organizations opposed to H.J. Res. 30. Eighty-three percent of institutions that submitted comments were in favor of the underlying rule. These organizations, who are opposed to H.J. Res. 30, include the AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, SEIU, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, and others.

Mr. Speaker, these organizations have diverse missions, but they all agree that H.J. Res. 30 should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters from financial services firms who submitted supportive comments on the underlying rule. These firms are BNY Melon Investment Management and Lazard Asset Management, who have trillions of dollars in assets under management.

BNY Mellon,

December 13, 2021.

Office of Regulations and Interpretations,

Employee Benefits Security Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.

On behalf of BNY Mellon Investment Management, thank you

for the opportunity to submit comments on the notice of

proposed rulemaking entitled ``Prudence and Loyalty in

Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder

Rights'' (the ``Proposal'') published by the U.S. Department

of Labor (the ``Department''). We strongly support the

Department's efforts to clarify the regulatory treatment of

environmental, social, and governance (``ESG'') factors under

Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974, as amended (``ERISA'') following the publication of

``Financial Factors in Selecting Plan Investments'' and

``Fiduciary Duties Regarding Proxy Voting and Shareholder

Rights'' (together, the ``Current Rules''). To continue the

Department's efforts to add clarity to the use of ESG factors

by fiduciaries we suggest the Department add clarification in

the rule or preamble that a fiduciary can use a screen to

consider ESG factors based on the fiduciary's determination

that a particular ESG factor will impact investment value

consistent with Section 2550.404a-1(c)(2) of the Proposal.

BNY Mellon Investment Management is a division of BNY

Mellon, one of the world's largest financial services groups.

With a presence in 35 countries, BNY Mellon looks to connect

investors with opportunities across every major asset class.

BNY Mellon Investment Management encompasses BNY Mellon's

affiliated investment firms and global distribution

companies, constituting over $2.3 trillion in AUM (as of

September 30, 2021).

BNY Mellon Investment Management follows a multi-boutique

investment management model that weds the specialist

expertise from its investment firms offering solutions across

every major asset class, backed by the strength, stewardship,

and global presence of BNY Mellon. Each investment firm has

its own unique culture, investment philosophy, and

proprietary investment processes, and provides a global

perspective. Our seven majority owned investment firms, are

as follows (all AUM figures as of September 30, 2021):

Alcentra ($41.0B), ARX ($7.0B), Dreyfus Cash Investment

Strategies ($342.7B), Insight Investment ($1,100.0B), Mellon

($448.6B), Newton Investment Management ($139.1B), and Walter

Scott ($99.9B).

At BNY Mellon Investment Management our Responsible

Investment (RI) approach varies across our investment firms,

but the effective stewardship of our clients' assets is

common to all and core to our own purpose. Many products or

solutions offered by BNY Mellon Investment Management examine

ESG factors in their investment processes and decision-making

to better manage risk and generate sustainable long-term

returns. Six of our investment firms--Alcentra, ARX, Insight,

Mellon, Newton, and Walter Scott--are signatories of the

Principles for Responsible Investment (``PRI'').

As we have noted in a previous comment letter, over the

past decades, fiduciaries and investment managers have come

to appreciate the materiality that ESG factors can have on

investment value. We welcome the Department's clarifications

to the Current Rules regarding the use of ESG factors and the

exercise of shareholder rights. The acknowledgement by the

Department that climate risks and other ESG factors can be

and often are material to investment risk and returns will

better allow fiduciaries to mitigate risk and enhance returns

based on evaluating ESG factors.

Within the last decade, a deep body of research has been

produced that demonstrates the material influence of ESG

factors on the profitability of an enterprise and the

performance of its securities. For example, weak control of

environmental activities such as pollution, over-consumption

of raw materials or lack of recycling of waste materials

readily leads to volatile or lower achieved margins or

financial penalties that reduce investor returns. Similarly

with social issues: high staff turnover, high strike rates or

absenteeism or death or injury rates have all been linked to

lower productivity and poor quality control. Regarding

governance, we know from years of empirical observation that

poorly managed issuers can seriously damage investor returns.

To ignore the entire category of information and analysis

that comprise ESG factors, therefore, could be deemed an

abrogation of a fiduciary's responsibility to consider all

material information when assessing the risk and return of

any investment opportunity.

The Proposal appropriately balances the materiality that

ESG factors can have on investment value with the

Department's longstanding principles that a fiduciary's

duties of prudence and loyalty require the fiduciary to

consider factors that are material to investment value. In

particular, a fiduciary should not subordinate the interests

of plan participants and beneficiaries to other objectives,

nor sacrifice investment return or take on additional

investment risk to promote goals unrelated to the plan and

its participants and beneficiaries. We specifically believe

that the proposed removal of the definition of ``pecuniary

factors'' and the revision to the Current Rules providing

that a fiduciary's evaluation of an investment or investment

course of action should be based on factors that ``are

material to investment value'' both clarifies the rule and

ensures that the rule reflects the analysis performed by

fiduciaries when making investment decisions.

We also support the removal of the special rule prohibiting

certain investment alternatives from being considered

qualified default investment alternatives (QDIA) because the

investment references ESG factors. The QDIA restrictions in

the Current Rules add uncertainty and would be difficult to

apply. We agree with the Department that there is not a

reason to prohibit fiduciaries from prudently selecting a

fund that meets the QDIA requirements and includes the

consideration of ESG factors.

We support the Department's efforts to reduce the

uncertainty in the market caused by the Current Rules and we

suggest additional clarification regarding the use of

screens. We believe this clarification could further reduce

uncertainty that might otherwise prevent fiduciaries from

considering ESG factors which are expected to enhance

investment value and performance or improve investment

portfolio resilience against the potential financial risks.

As noted above, we support the removal of ``pecuniary

factors'' and that a fiduciary's evaluation of an investment

or investment course of action should be based on factors

that ``are material to investment value''. We think that the

Department could add additional clarity to the rule or

preamble by clarifying that the proposed rule does not per se

prohibit a fiduciary from using a screen on investments based

in whole or in part on ESG factors.

A common method used by investment managers to incorporate

ESG factors into the assessment of investment risks and

returns is the use of screens. As described in the Proposal,

``negative screening refers to the exclusion of certain

sectors, companies, or practices from a fund or portfolio

based on ESG criteria.'' The Proposal's discussion of the

benefits that can occur from the use of ESG factors in the

assessment of investment risks and returns relies on sources

that studied the impact of investment managers using screens

based on ESG factors. However, the Current Rules and some

past guidance regarding the use of ESG factors could be read

to preclude the use of screens based on ESG factors.

We suggest that the Department clarify in the final rule or

its preamble that the investment prudence duties and the

investment loyalty duties under Sections 2550.404a-1(b) and

2550.404a-1(c), respectively, do not per se prohibit the use

of screens. For example, it should be permissible for a plan

fiduciary to select investment managers and funds that use

screens to the extent that doing so would otherwise be

consistent with its duties. It should similarly be

permissible for any such investment manager to select an

``investment course of action'' that uses a screen to the

extent that the resulting investment strategy would otherwise

be consistent with its duties. Such a clarification would

provide certainty to fiduciaries seeking to use ESG factors

in the assessment of investment risks and returns in

accordance with their prudence and loyalty duties. It would

further ensure that plan participants realize the full

benefits of fiduciaries using ESG factors as described in the

Proposal.

We strongly support the Department's efforts to bring

clarity to the use of ESG factors and the exercise of

shareholder rights by plan fiduciaries. We believe the

Proposal and the changes suggested here will promote

retirement income security and further retirement savings by

allowing fiduciaries to better manage risks and improve

investment returns.

Sincerely,

Hanneke Smits,

Chief Executive Officer,

BNY Mellon Investment Management.

Mr. Speaker, this is just a small sample of the financial industry's support for the underlying rule. We should not overturn the rule with this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose H.J. Res. 30, I encourage all Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, the chairwoman of the committee, for her leadership in fighting the politicization of capital allocation and the politicization of retirement savings.

Mr. Speaker, today House Republicans stand on the side of retail investors. We stand up for millions of Americans around the country who are increasingly asking themselves this simple question: When will I be able to retire?

This Congressional Review Act measure that I am offering is a bipartisan, bicameral joint resolution, disapproving of a Department of Labor rulemaking that will politicize Americans' retirement accounts and jeopardize their retirement security.

This measure simply states that retirement plan sponsors be required to prioritize maximum financial returns for investors ahead of nonpecuniary factors like environmental, social, and governance standards, a political agenda.

We do so in a moment where one in five Americans have saved nothing for their retirement, including one in three baby boomers, the generation closest to retirement.

We do so in a moment when 78 percent of Americans are either extremely or somewhat concerned about affording a comfortable retirement.

We do so in a moment where the gap between the amount of money that Americans have saved for retirement and the amount that they will need for retirement is $3.8 trillion.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, Congress must act to block the Biden administration's recent rule that green-lights so-called ESG investing in millions of Americans' retirement plans, plowing them into less diversified, higher fees, and lower-performing portfolios at precisely the time that we need to maximize financial security for Americans approaching retirement.

So let's consider the facts. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, ESG funds carry 43 percent higher fees than non-ESG funds.

That is what they want. They want Americans to be forced into higher fee funds. A recent study from NYU and the University of Southern California found that over the past 5 years, global ESG funds have underperformed the broader market by 250 basis points per year, an average of 2.6 percent lower return than non-ESG funds.

This stands to reason because ESG funds are, by design, less diversified. This is investing 101.

When you discriminate against energy stocks, and you are heavy in tech, when you are in a tech sell-off, and when energy underperforms the market, who loses? The American retail investor who is unwittingly invested in these fraudulent, cancerous funds.

This means that an investor who put $10,000 into an average global ESG fund in 2017 would have realized a $1,750 lower return than if they had invested in the broader market.

While some of my friends on the other side of the aisle argue that ESG investing is actually driven by investors themselves, not ideologues at asset management firms and the White House who want to push their environmental or social causes at the expense of retail investors, a 2021 study conducted by the University of Chicago and FINRA proves investors largely do not care.

Mr. Speaker, 21 percent of investors don't even know what ESG stands for. Is that popular? Is that what popular ESG is?

And this neutrality nonsense. Look, nobody is saying you can't invest based on your values, but this bill would steer people unwittingly into these funds.

The status quo does not deny people to invest based on their values. It just says that the default has to be to maximize returns.

So, Mr. Speaker, this debate today is not about investor protection. It is about the ability of investors to maximize returns.

It is also about energy security. Even if you don't have a retirement account, this radical ESG movement is hitting your wallet.

Since President Biden took office, his administration has waged a war on

American energy production; not just holding up leases or blocking infrastructure, but through financial regulation and the weaponization of financial regulation to divert resources and capital and financing away from the American energy sector.

There has been a 25 percent decline in investment in natural gas and in oil investments since 2021, and the result? Gas prices are up 40 percent, and diesel prices are almost double.

Household energy costs hit a 10-year high this winter, costing average American families $1,200, according to a report from the National Energy Assistance Directors Association.

These price hikes and the decline in investment in our energy supply come at the exact time that the Biden administration itself estimates that by 2050, almost half of our Nation's energy supply will be made up of oil and natural gas.

Mr. Speaker, we need more, not less, capital investment and financing of American energy.

I implore the administration. It is time for you to end your assault on energy production that is fueling 40-year high inflation.

We, as Members of Congress, cannot allow this administration to continue to perpetrate their war on American energy at the expense of investors.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't understand the existing law and what this resolution does and what the Department of Labor's new rule is, or whether they are just trying to confuse the listeners and watchers here today because the truth is that this is not material for the vast majority of Americans.

The studies show that most Americans don't even know what ESG is. To the extent Americans do find it material, nothing in this resolution prohibits an American from allocating their capital the way they want to.

What this resolution will do is stop the Department of Labor from coercing Americans into lower performing, higher fee, less diversified, politicized funds. We must stop the politicization of allocation of capital.

When my friend from Illinois says: Well, why are Republicans picking losers? Really?

In 2022, the S&P 500 energy sector ended the year a whopping 59 percent higher than where it started. Amid a brutal bear market in which the S&P 500 overall lost 20 percent, if you were invested in ESG in 2022, you were a massive loser because you were divested from energy.

Stop the politicization of capital. If you want to give Americans freedom to choose what is material for them in investing, vote against the Department of Labor rule, which would conceal what the Department of Labor is doing, which is steering Americans into investments that have political values that they disagree with.

Give Americans true transparency. Go back to the Department of Labor rule under the Trump administration, which says the default should always be consistent with ERISA, maximizing financial performance.

If you want an alternative, if you want to subordinate financial returns to the environment, to climate change, to social justice, to whatever, and you really don't care about your retirement security, then you can choose that.

Let the American investor decide, and the default should always be maximum investor returns.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 166, I call up joint resolution (H.J. Res. 30) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 30, a Congressional Review Act resolution nullifying the Biden administration's attempt to politicize the retirement savings of Americans.

ESG investing puts the future of millions of Americans in jeopardy. Due to Biden's reckless economic policies, too many Americans are worried about the rising costs of living. Diverting retirement savings to fund social justice causes will make this problem even worse. For current retirees, the situation is especially salient.

Last year, the Biden Department of Labor published a rule allowing retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance, ESG, factors for making investment decisions and exercising shareholder rights.

The rule removed commonsense protections for retirement savings established by the Trump administration, which ensured that retirement plan fiduciaries evaluate investments and exercise shareholder rights based only on the financial benefits to participants and beneficiaries. That is what retirement savers expect.

Now, thanks to Democrats, workers can be placed into ESG investment vehicles by default. If a fiduciary finds that two investments are equal, the fiduciary is allowed to use collateral ESG factors to break the tie without justifying or documenting that decision.

While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the Biden rule is neutral, they have done a poor job of hiding the administration's true intentions.

The Department issued the rule in response to two executive orders on climate change and the explanation of the rule is littered with Democrats' preferred political projects, such as labor relations, climate change, and workforce and corporate diversity.

Further, DOL officials have repeatedly stated that they will pursue additional actions concerning ESG and retirement plans.

The left is using ESG investment criteria as a political tool to cudgel companies into accepting leftist policies. This is how the left always operates. This is just the first step.

If we let this continue, the left will use ESG investing to push noncompliant companies out of the marketplace. This is pernicious and it is hypocritical.

It is unacceptable to encourage fiduciaries to sacrifice the savings of Americans to the orthodoxy of the woke left. In fact, this is prohibited under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ERISA, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Yet, the Biden administration's rule permitting and encouraging retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG when investing workers' savings flips ERISA on its head.

By paving the way for ESG investing in employer-sponsored retirement plans, President Biden is threatening the retirement savings of Americans. Such a fundamental change to ERISA should be debated and considered in Congress, not enacted through executive fiat illegally. Americans invest to secure their future, not to fund the Green New Deal or leftist pet projects.

Fiduciaries governed by ERISA should not be allowed to make investments they know will not pay off. A fiduciary's most important responsibility is to make investments that are in the financial interests of workers and retirees.

It is time to stop this madness. That is why I support the resolution to nullify the Biden administration's destructive retirement plan rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put workers and retirees above politics and vote for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the originator of this CRA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

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

It is a little ironic that our side of the aisle is being accused of being anticapitalist and anti-free market. I would like to clarify for the record the content of the Trump Department of Labor rule on retirement plan ESG investing.

Under the Trump rule, if a fiduciary finds that an ESG factor is a pecuniary or financial factor, it can be considered when investing and exercising shareholder rights.

Here are a few excerpts of the Trump rule, to set the record straight:

``Nothing in the final rule is intended to or does prevent a fiduciary from appropriately considering any material risk with respect to an investment.''

Another quote: ``The ERISA fiduciary duty of prudence requires portfolio-level attention to risk and return objectives reasonably suited to the purpose of the account, diversification, cost sensitivity, documentation, and ongoing monitoring.''

``The proposal was not intended to suggest that these principles apply other than neutrally to all investment decisions. . . . ''

To suggest that the Trump rule barred a fiduciary from appropriately considering any factor that may be material to an investment is blatantly false. If anything, the Trump rule was neutral as to the prudent decisions of fiduciaries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 30, to stop the Biden administration from decimating the retirement savings of millions of Americans.

ESG funds will not give retirees the secure future they need. According to a former BlackRock senior executive, ESG funds underperformed the broader market compared to non-ESG funds over the last 5 years.

Retirees are already worried about the rising costs of goods and services, not whether a company is using plastic straws in its cafeteria.

Americans deserve to have a secure retirement. This means retirement plans need to focus solely on workers' financial interests. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 30, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against this measure.

H.J. Res. 30 would nullify a Department of Labor rule concerning the fiduciary duties with respect to employee benefit plans.

Under the rule issued on December 1, 2022, plan fiduciaries may consider climate change and other environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors when they make investment decisions and when they exercise shareholder rights, including voting on shareholder resolutions and board nominations.

One of my greatest joys as a Member of Congress is the opportunity to work on behalf of the people of the United States of America, to ensure that every voice is heard, and every right is upheld.

In addition, the future of the American People relies heavily on thoughtful investments in key areas that include ESG as this is the backbone of our environment and the state of livelihoods of our growing communities.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, fiduciaries of private pension plans must act in the interest of plan participants, including when making investment decisions.

If participants want to invest their employee benefits into environmental, social, and governance factors, the government should not be against it just because it goes against a particular party's interests.

The rule ``Financial Factors in Selecting Plan Investments,'' issued on November 13, 2020, required fiduciaries to make investment decisions based solely on ``pecuniary factors.''

That rule included a ``tiebreaker'' standard, under which fiduciaries could consider other benefits when ``alternative investment options are economically indistinguishable.''

The 2022 rule clarified how plan fiduciaries may consider climate change and other environmental, social, or governance (commonly referred to as ESG) factors when making investment decisions.

Under the new regulation, fiduciaries may consider ``the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, or governance factors,'' but investment decisions ``may not subordinate the interests of the participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial benefits under the plan to other objectives and may not sacrifice investment return or take on additional investment risk.''

This bill establishes the disapproval of the final rule ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights.''

The world is seeing more climate related disasters than ever before.

These disasters are greatly impacting the way that the public prepares their finances for potential strains.

In 2017 Hurricane Harvey ravaged many communities in my home state and devastated the livelihoods of many working-class Americans.

Many of my constituents experienced economic hardships that are still being felt today.

With an increase in natural disasters, we must protect the American public and provide them with opportunities to invest in their needs.

This point serves to acknowledge the importance we must put into our people and communities as things change and we continue to progress into the future.

Strategic and thoughtful investments in our people, environments, and livelihoods should be of utmost importance.

In essence, our future is dependent on how we invest in the now.

The American people want a future, and we can provide that by thoughtfully planning through our strategic investments in the American people of all backgrounds and the diverse environments in which we aim to thrive in for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this misguided resolution, which will tie the hands of investors from doing their jobs and will hurt the retirement savings of millions of hardworking Americans.

The evidence is clear. Companies that adopt thoughtful policies to manage their environmental, social, and governance risks outperform those that don't. I will say that again. Companies that have thoughtful policies to manage their environmental, social, and governance risks outperform those that don't.

Don't believe me? Ask the shareholders of BP, whose stock fell more than 50 percent after the Gulf oilspill, wiping out billions of dollars of shareholder value; or Volkswagen, whose stock fell 45 percent after they were caught cheating on emissions tests.

How about Norfolk Southern? They are in the news lately. Their stock is tanking because of their inattention to managing the safety of their operations.

The fact is that environmental, social, and governance issues are financially material to company performance. Any investor who knows what they are doing would be foolish to ignore those factors.

I know this because, as State treasurer and as an investor in the private sector, I have spent the last 10 years studying corporate performance. ESG issues matter.

Even if you don't agree with me, even if you think that environmental and social issues are not material to performance, you ought to at least believe

that, in a free market, investors should have the power to make their own decisions and to choose which factors they think are material or not.

Let them use their professional judgment. Don't try to police what investors are thinking when they are making decisions.

Why is it that the Republican majority, which claims to be the party of limited government and free markets, is abandoning its free-market principles and trying to dictate to investors what they have to think? It makes no sense.

If anyone was wondering what this is about, it is not about free markets. It is not, certainly, about protecting workers' retirement security.

I will just say again, let's be honest about what this debate is really about. It is not about protecting worker retirement savings. If we were serious about that, we would be saying that ESG is material and should be considered.

It is not about free-market principles.

Could it be that it has to do with the oil and gas industry pouring tens of millions of dollars into campaign accounts on the Republican side? Could that be what is driving this?

Well, I think we see now where the priorities of our colleagues on the Republican side lie--not with workers, not with free-market principles, but with doing the bidding of the oil and gas industry.