Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 209, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 826 Divided Families Reunification Act, I would have voted Yea.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lieutenant Colonel Phillip James DeVries II on his retirement after 28 years of honorable service to our Nation. I stand with the people of West Michigan in recognizing the tremendous impact Lieutenant Colonel DeVries has had on our Nation and abroad.

Lieutenant Colonel DeVries began his service at West Point, where he was commissioned as Second lieutenant Field Artillery Officer. He then went on to become a Strategic Plans and Policies Officer in the United States Army, where he aided in strategizing and planning the future of the Army. Chosen for his dedication to international affairs, he also had the honor of attending the NATO Defense College, where he gained the experience to participate in multiple international assignments involving 22 countries. Lieutenant Colonel DeVries was deployed four times throughout his career and faithfully served his country through strategic operations and on the ground.

Lieutenant Colonel Phillip DeVries truly is an American hero, and his service will have a lasting effect both nationally and internationally.

Madam Speaker, it is because of dedicated, honorable individuals such as Lieutenant Colonel Phillip James DeVries II that I am incredibly proud to serve Michigan's 2nd Congressional District. I join with those in West Michigan and around the globe in thanking Lieutenant Colonel DeVries for his many years of service and wish him a happy retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes. Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 209, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 826 Divided Families Reunification Act, I would have voted Yea.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with an opportunity for this body and the United States Congress to save lives.

The Hyde amendment has been an essential safeguard that has defended the unborn and protected millions of lives for more than 40 years. A recent estimate credits the Hyde amendment with saving more than 2.4 million precious and innocent lives.

Historically, measures which prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to perform abortions have garnered strong bipartisan support. In fact, President Biden was a vocal supporter of the Hyde amendment during his decades of service in the U.S. Senate.

However, it is clear that Democrats in Washington have changed their mind, as they have recently made it their mission to eliminate these longstanding protections and force families in west Michigan and across the Nation to violate their deeply held beliefs by funding abortions on demand with their hard-earned tax dollars.

I believe, as millions of Michiganders and those across America believe, we must embrace a culture that protects the values of life. Using taxpayer dollars to end the lives of innocent children is wrong.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Sheriff Kim Cole of Mason County in Michigan. He was named Michigan Sheriffs' Association Sheriff of the Year this past week.

This award recognizes the sheriff who has made outstanding contributions to law enforcement and the criminal justice profession, demonstrates exceptional service to their community, and has contributed to the betterment of the Michigan Sheriffs' Association.

Kim Cole was first elected sheriff in 2012 and is currently serving in his third term. He started at the Mason County Sheriff's Office as a reserve deputy, and then was hired by the Mason County Sheriff's Office as a full-time deputy in 1985. He was then promoted to sergeant in 1993.

What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that Cole's great-great grandfather, Henry Cole, served as one of Mason County's first sheriffs.

Now, Kim will be the first one to tell you that you are only as good as the people you surround yourself with, and he is extremely proud of all of those who he serves with.

Kim leads with integrity, courage, fortitude, and compassion, and has a passion to serve his community.

Kim Cole, I want to say thank you. Mason County is a better place to work, live, and raise a family because of you.

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

I am opposed to this bill, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 1187.

Mr. Speaker, today, my Democrat colleagues, once again, are seeking to hijack our securities laws to push leftwing political and social agendas, despite dressing it up as investor protection.

Make no mistake, this bill will increase costs on publicly owned companies, discourage private companies from going public; and, frankly, could encourage not only private companies to stay private, but even have and entice public companies to go back to being private companies.

This is going to result in fewer investment opportunities for everyday American investors, also known as our constituents, who are saving for retirement, a college education or simply looking to just build a better life.

In short, this bill will increase the number of government-directed, mandatory disclosure requirements on publicly traded companies, which will increase compliance costs on companies and divert company resources that could have been used to create more jobs.

Now, to be fair, this is a job-creation bill. However, the only jobs created by this bill will be for a special tranche of attorneys, corporate compliance coordinators, and the occasional scientist; not exactly what an economist would call productive-types of jobs.

Under this bill, public companies would be required to disclose:

Environmental, social, and governance issues, as well as climate risk. These metrics would be set by the Securities and Exchange Commission, not Congress;

Descriptions of any expenditure for political activities and donations to political candidates or trade organizations by executives, these are duplicative of existing requirements, for example;

The ratio between the pay raise percentage of the company's executives and the pay raise percentage of the company's median employee. This is, in some ways, duplicative of the mandatory CEO pay ratio disclosure that Democrats put into the Dodd-Frank Act, which itself is an especially useless metric; country-by-country tax and financial reports from multinational enterprises. This will upend the current country-by-country tax reporting rules overseen by the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. My friends across the aisle are using the Federal securities laws to implement their partisan wish list of social policy priorities. They are doing it through mandatory disclosure regimes that are, at best, tangentially related to actual investment decisions.

To be clear, if information presents a material investment risk to a publicly traded company, the company is--wait for this--already required to disclose it. That information is out there for those companies that have material risk.

Materiality has been, and continues to be, the touchstone of our public company disclosure regime for more than eight decades and has actually even been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It has held the test of time, and we simply cannot just discard it to appeal to the Democrats' progressive agenda.

Our capital markets are the best in the world in no small part because materiality is the basis of our disclosure regime here in the United States, yet my Democrat friends, apparently, want to throw it all away for the sake of appealing to leftwing stakeholders.

Additionally, H.R. 1187 will greatly expand the SEC's jurisdiction by requiring the SEC to promulgate disclosures on environmental, climate change, political spending, tax reporting, and foreign policy issues, among others.

This is not the sweet spot for the SEC. It does not have the experience in any of these issues, and is not the appropriate entity for determining these metrics or industry standards, nor is the Securities and Exchange Commission the appropriate entity to review and enforce such disclosures.

The SEC knows how to regulate materiality. That is their expertise. They are not climatologists or climate scientists. They are not election law experts. And they most certainly do not know international tax law. That is the purview of the EPA, NOAA, the FEC, and the IRS.

Furthermore, smaller public companies will bear the burden of additional compliance costs. This bill fails to account for the impact it will have on smaller businesses and companies, especially those who are looking to go public. Or maybe I should say, were looking to go public. They certainly do not have the infrastructure or resources to spend on fixed costs of compliance like this.

H.R. 1187 will result in fewer investment opportunities for American investors. It will discourage private companies from going public and encourage public companies to go private to avoid these burdensome new nonmaterial and useless disclosure requirements.

Sadly, this will hurt the everyday investors, our constituents, that the Democrats claim they want to help. In other words, this bill stands to harm everyone saving for retirement, a college education, or just looking to build a better life.

This is just a bad bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1187.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who has been an outstanding voice on these particular issues.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters, a June 14 letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, a June 15 letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a June 16 letter from the American Securities Association, all in opposition to this bill.

National Association of

Manufacturers,

June 14, 2021

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association

of Manufacturers, I write to express opposition to H.R. 1187,

the Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor Protection

Act.

Manufacturers are taking the lead in innovating solutions

to climate change, ensuring clean air and water, and

enhancing diversity and inclusion--and, importantly, in

providing information about this critical work to their

investors. Public company reporting related to climate change

and other environmental, social, and governance topics should

allow for principles-based disclosure of financially material

information relevant to these efforts. The NAM is concerned

that the ESG Disclosure Simplification Act, the Shareholder

Political Transparency Act, the Greater Accountability in Pay

Act, and the Climate Risk Disclosure Act would impose

disclosure mandates that focus on costly one-size-fits-all

metrics rather than material, decision-useful information for

investors.

Similarly, the Disclosure of Tax Havens and Offshoring Act

would impose a significant compliance burden--while also

risking exposure of valuable and proprietary data--by

requiring public reporting of country-by-country tax

information by U.S. companies. The United States' support for

Action 13 of the OECD/G20's BEPS country-by-country reporting

initiative was based on the requirement that these reports,

which are exchanged between the IRS and other tax

authorities, would remain confidential.

The NAM is engaging with the Securities and Exchange

Commission as it considers ways to enhance the comparability

of climate and ESG information disclosed by publicly traded

companies. Manufacturers are hopeful that any new climate or

ESG reporting framework will be flexible, principles-based,

and materiality-driven while providing clarity to publicly

traded companies and supporting their efforts to furnish

material information to investors in a comparable manner. We

encourage Congress to provide appropriate oversight of the

SEC's ongoing work without mandating a one-size-fits-all

approach.

Sincerely,

Chris Netram,

Vice President, Tax and

Domestic Economic Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), who is a new Member to this House Chamber and an outstanding Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Wall Street Journal dated from 2018, ``California Public Employees Vote Against Pension-Fund Activism.''

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 18, 2018]

California Public Employees Vote Against Pension-Fund Activism

(By Paul S. Atkins)

Playing politics with other people's savings is never

popular.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System this

month said no thank you to pension-fund activism. Government

workers unseated Priya Mathur, the sitting Calpers president.

She was defeated by Jason Perez, a police-union official who

criticized Ms. Mathur's focus on environmental, social and

governance investing, or ESG. Mr. Perez emphasizes the

agency's fiduciary duty to maximize investor returns.

Calpers represents almost two million California public

employees, retirees and families. Yet it mostly makes

headlines for its activism, such as divestiture from the

tobacco industry. ``It's been used more as a political-action

committee than a retirement fund,'' said Mr. Perez. ``I think

the public agency [employees] are just sick of the

shenanigans.''

Americans have always invested to achieve personal goals,

such as saving for a house or their kids' college tuition.

Some find that an ESG or issue-specific approach to investing

accords with their personal philosophies. There is nothing

wrong with people investing their own money however they

like. But Calpers has a fiduciary duty to California public

employees, who rely on it for retirement security.

Hester Peirce, a commissioner of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, recently observed, ``When a pension-fund

manager is making the decision to pursue her moral goals at

the risk of financial return, the manager is putting other

people's retirements at risk.'' The danger for Calpers is

real: In 2016 a consultant found that the fund's

beneficiaries missed up to $3 billion in investment gains

from 2001-14. The reason? A divestiture from tobacco holdings

for political purposes.

All this happens as Calpers remain underfunded. Worse, its

beneficiaries are stuck. They are locked into the system and

cannot vote with their feet.

While Calpers beneficiaries are demanding a renewed focus

on returns, activists continue to work other channels to

impose

agenda-driven requirements on public companies. Sen.

Elizabeth Warren last month unveiled a bill that would direct

the SEC to mandate that all public companies disclose fossil-

fuel use and greenhouse-gas emissions. This month a petition

signed by 17 law professors and institutional investors,

including Calpers, asked the SEC to develop mandatory rules

for public companies to disclose ESG information.

The petition argues that since there are already so many

requests to the SEC for issue-specific disclosures human-

capital management, climate, tax, human rights, pay ratios by

sex, and political spending--the agency should impose a

broader ESG disclosure framework. The laundry list of

possible disclosures underscores the problem. Requiring

companies to account for an ever-changing list of hard-to-

quantify social issues distracts from disclosure's real,

statutory purpose: giving the reasonable investor material

information he needs to make investing decisions.

These proposals always tout purported benefits to

investors, but mandatory disclosure of additional immaterial

information would be harmful. In a 2013 speech, former SEC

Chairman Mary Jo White decried the ``information overload''

in already bloated annual reports that obscures pertinent

disclosures for investors amid a sea of extraneous

information. She summarized: ``What some investors might want

may not be what reasonable investors need.'' Translation:

More information is not necessarily better information.

Mandating politicized corporate disclosures doesn't align

with the SEC's mission to protect investors and facilitate

capital formation. Instead, it would divert resources away

from business operations and growth. It is simply an attempt

to shame public companies into compliance with activists'

demands.

As Mr. Perez put it, criticizing a proposal to divest from

some gun retailers earlier this year: ``This is nothing more

than a political ploy.'' His push to prioritize performance

over politics clearly resonated with California public

employees; lawmakers and pension-fund managers should take

note.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), and I thank him for his work on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the remaining time on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. Speaker, just a point of information for the chair from California: We have one more speaker, and I will be prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to make sure we are clear not only with my colleagues but to those who may be listening and watching today.

Our side of the aisle has a couple of problems with this legislation today. First and foremost is the structure; next is the content; and then third, we have to question motivation.

What is the problem with the structure?

My friend from Connecticut talked about an issue that we have a lot of agreement on, and I say to him: Amen, hallelujah, let's talk about cybersecurity. Let's talk about how corporations are going to be held responsible for that.

However, my colleague from Iowa is talking about corporate tax law and country-by-country tax reporting. Now, that might be a good issue, but it is the wrong committee. I wondered to myself if Chairman Dingell, who chaired the Ways and Means Committee for a few decades, and my colleague from Michigan, would have allowed this committee mission creep. Actually, I don't wonder. I know exactly what he would have said: Hell, no. This is in my committee.

This issue is in the wrong committee, and Financial Services is not the right and proper place to be doing that.

Let's look at the content of these bills. We are not debating climate, and we are not debating these social issues that need to be addressed. We are debating who is responsible for enforcing these. We are not debating the failures and flaws of humans. We are questioning who should be the enforcer of these regulations and if they are equipped to do so.

Now, not that long ago, before defunding the police was a popular item to discuss, the SEC was commonly called on all sides the cop on the beat. They were the cops on the beat who were the enforcers. They were the ones who were coming along and saying: We are going to make sure that there is no fraud as we protect investors; we are going to make sure that we have efficient markets; and we are going to make sure that we are building capital.

Here is the problem: They are not prepared and equipped to do so.

Don't take my word for it. Let's look at President Obama's head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mary Jo White, who said: ``When disclosure gets to be too much or strays from its core purposes, it can lead to `information overload,' a phenomenon in which ever-increasing amounts of disclosure make it difficult for investors to focus on the information that is material and most relevant to their decisionmaking as investors in our financial markets. To safeguard the benefits of this `signature mandate,' the SEC needs to maintain the ability to exercise its own independent judgment and expertise when deciding whether and how best to impose new disclosure requirements.''

She also said at one point that the Securities and Exchange Commission was not prepared to do enforcement on areas that they had no expertise. She was referring to conflict minerals. That was also part of the Dodd-Frank Act.

So, we have a number of issues that are in this content. Earlier, my colleague, the chair from California, submitted a letter from CalPERS in support of this. Earlier, just prior to that, I had submitted an article from The Wall Street Journal where CalPERS had actually had a massive regime change--this was in 2018--regarding this pension fund activism.

At the time, Mr. Perez, who was elected as the president of CalPERS, said:

CalPERS has been used more as a political action committee

than a retirement fund. I think the public agency employees

are just sick of the shenanigans.

Hester Peirce, a Commissioner with the Securities and Exchange Commission, recently observed: ``When a pension fund manager is making the decision to pursue her moral goals at the risk of financial return, the manager is putting other people's retirements at risk.''

She was referring to the person whom Mr. Perez had beaten in that election.

The danger is real. In 2016, a consultant found that the CalPERS fund beneficiaries missed up to $3 billion in investment gains from 2001 to 2014. The reason? A divestiture of tobacco holdings for political purposes.

I wonder if this might be why some of the motivation for those on the other side, that they want to cover themselves. They want to make sure they are not open to the liability of retirees or others with a fiduciary being held responsible for bad decisionmaking when they use these amorphous, nondefined issues to make political statements rather than investment choices.

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, what we have here is a problem not just of the issues but of the enforcement. I believe that if we are asking the ``cop on the beat,'' the Securities and Exchange Commission, to do a job that is up to the streets and maintenance department, then no one could expect that they are prepared for that. How can we expect that they are going to be able to do this?

With that, and including my opening statement where we looked at the disincentive to make sure there are more investment opportunities for everyday investors--our constituents--I must remain opposed to H.R. 1187.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendments en bloc, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let's be honest. If the original bill wasn't bad enough, Democrats' en bloc amendments complete the picture. With this amendment, Democrats are packaging even more non-investment-relevant social priorities that only serve to feed protesters and dissidents with information to be used in naming and shaming companies.

I had mentioned earlier that in some of the bills in this package, we have some potential impossibility of working with each other. There are others that don't belong in our committee.

Then there are other bills that don't make sense if we really, truly are trying to protect investors from fraud and trying to build capital in our country, which is the directive of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Let's look at some of the specific information companies would be required to disclose under these amendments and how it benefits everyday investors.

Take the workforce and human capital management disclosure amendment, for example. How exactly is a company supposed to measure and disclose, in a comprehensible and comparable manner, ``employee engagement'' and ``alignment with business strategy''?

Additionally, how does disclosing the company's policies relating to ``freedom of association and work-life balance initiatives'' help everyday investors evaluate the risks of investing in that company?

My friends on the other side have been pretty adamantly opposed to Robinhood, but those who are looking to use Robinhood might actually like that work-life balance. That is kind of millennial type of language that is being used in here.

This amendment might as well require companies to disclose their policy on dogs in the office and whether their canine coworkers are purebreds or mixed breed types of rescue dogs. This doesn't have relevance and materiality to investors.

It is also worth highlighting an amendment that requires American companies to disclose whether the company or an affiliate of the company directly or indirectly engaged with an entity or the affiliate of an entity regarding the importation of not only goods from the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region but also goods that have materials originally sourced from the XUAR.

Well, this is a redo from last Congress, and now that Democrats have one-party control, their motives are clear. The bill requires companies to show if their affiliates are indirectly engaged with affiliates of certain companies.

To put it simply, American companies would be required to disclose unknowable information and face securities fraud charges for any misstatements or omissions.

Now, let's not have any doubt: This side of the aisle has been highlighting the Uighur situation for a very long time through bills, through amendments, through sanctions, advocating those and holding China and the CCP responsible.

But, again, under this legislation, they will violate the law for trying to disclose unknowable information.

Why would a company want to go public under that regime? And how does disclosing such indecipherable information help everyday investors make more informed investment decisions?

Now, just to make sure my Democrat friends don't twist my words, like I said, I very much care about the Chinese Communist Party's human rights abuses. We need to be focused on that. I think many of the underlying concerns that motivate this legislation and amendment are important. But the public company disclosure regime is simply the wrong vehicle for addressing those concerns.

The SEC's mission is to: one, protect investors from fraud; two, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and, three, facilitate capital formation. These packages of bills do not do that, and nothing in the SEC's mission looks remotely like enforcing foreign policy goals or labor law.

Mary Jo White had pointed that out regarding the conflict minerals portion of the Dodd-Frank law. Once again, Democrats are more than comfortable with shoving the SEC into subject matter areas where they have zero expertise rather than getting the policy right.

There are real downsides to this approach my colleagues are taking. Mandatory disclosure increases compliance costs. The more complicated and technical the information required to be reported in disclosures, the more specialized the attorneys and compliance experts a company needs to adhere to a law.

If I need to spell that out for you, that is money that companies cannot spend on its workforce and investing in their business, in equipment, and in their wages, or returning money to everyday investors who have invested in those companies.

Moreover, just to be clear, because my Democrat friends keep talking about how badly investors want this information, under the disclosure requirements in these amendments, everyday investors aren't the ones who benefit. Social activists, as well as compliance professionals-- that is, lawyers and accountants--are the ones who will reap the biggest reward under these amendments.

We are helping the elite workforce with the bill and these amendments. Instead of helping investors participate in our capital markets and helping American workers, these amendments will leave everyday investors buried in disclosures that are, at most, tangentially related to investment.

Meanwhile, smaller public companies with shoestring compliance budgets will have to delay raising wages for workers in order to reallocate that capital to hiring more lawyers.

At its core, this amendment just heightens the key problem with the original bill. The additional disclosures will disincentivize private companies from going public, which will inhibit everyday investors, our constituents, from participating in our capital markets and will limit their choices of public companies to invest in.

Let's not eliminate access and opportunities to everyday investors, especially when rich investors will still have access to investing in companies that have gone private or stayed private in response to these amendments.

I think that is one of the things, Madam Speaker, that is getting lost in this. Those that have will continue to have those options. Those that are trying to build a future are going to get frozen out once again.

For that reason, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this was claimed earlier by one of the authors that investors wanted this information, I believe was the quote.

Well, I ask the question: If investors want this information, as claimed, then they can bring a vote to the shareholders to require these disclosures. Evidence, Madam Speaker, would dictate and show that precious few of these types of issues have actually been brought to shareholder meetings, where they are voted on. In the rare times that they have, even fewer have actually been approved.

So, no, investors don't look at this information. They don't want this information, and they don't view it as material to the investment decisions that they are making.

So you have to ask the question, then: Who is requiring or requesting this information? I suspect it is more about appeasing social activists. It is not about the workers and it is certainly not about the investors. This is about making sure that the virtue signaling that is required in today's corporate world--may I add, for large corporations, because there are plenty of small and medium-sized, even publicly traded companies that are bucking this.

But for these large corporations who have massive, massive compliance departments that are chock-full of attorneys, chock-full of CPAs and others that are going to work through this, and they are going to hire their friends in the consulting world to make sure that they are dotting the I's and crossing the T's, that is who it is really about.

Sadly, unfortunately, who ultimately ends up losing in that equation is the worker and the investor, our constituents.

Madam Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the goals of this amendment, and I applaud my colleague from Washington. We should be concerned about the effects of this bill and ESG reporting on small businesses, and I would say that this is a step in the right direction.

However, I don't believe this amendment actually goes far enough. The ranking member of the full committee submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have exempted small businesses from the onerous and unnecessary requirements of this bill, and, sadly, that amendment was not made in order. I think that may have achieved the same goal in a certainly much more clear manner for the author.

This bill will be particularly burdensome on small businesses that don't have the resources to pay all the expenses associated with complying with these disclosures, such as lawyers, accountants, and other ESG consultants.

I know the chairwoman had mentioned that somehow my statements earlier and the statements of my colleagues were supportive of large business and their support of this. It is actually the exact opposite. I could really care less what the Fortune 50 think about this.

I am concerned about that bottom 50. I am worried about those up-and- coming companies that are going to have those precious resources sucked into more compliance that, again, does not have relevance or materiality to investors, nor is it actually requested by investors.

But this bill is a prime example of Wall Street versus Main Street, and I commend my colleague for fighting for Main Street with this amendment.

I am prepared to accept this amendment because I hope it will help small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to support this amendment, and I am happy to accept it.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exemplary career of Tom TenBrink and his legacy of service, dedication, and success in the Jenison community. On behalf of west Michigan, it is an honor to express my appreciation and gratitude for his many years of service to the students, staff, and families of Jenison Public Schools.

Mr. TenBrink's distinguished career with the Jenison Public Schools is coming to an end, as he is retiring after 34 successful years, 18 of which were spent as superintendent of the district.

As a faithful servant to west Michigan, Mr. TenBrink has spent his tenure establishing Jenison Public Schools as a destination district. He has fostered a family culture, prioritizing the importance of adopting attitudes of servant leadership, while also maintaining a commitment to educational excellence.

His steadfast leadership has led to the creation of the Jenison International Academy, the development of a K-12 Spanish immersion program, and the building of the Jenison Center for the Arts and a new Kids First early childhood center. Furthermore, the district has earned countless accolades under his leadership.

Tom, thank you for your leadership, dedication, and commitment not only to the students, but to the Jenison community and all of west Michigan. I hope you enjoy retirement knowing that Jenison and Georgetown Township would not be the place it is today without your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my friend and colleague from Arkansas to acknowledge the work that has been put in by our colleague from Connecticut. This has been a long discussion that we have had various points where we have debated, and this is a positive thing.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, preventing fraud and abuse within our financial system and cracking down on bad actors for illegal insider trading is a nonpartisan priority. We all believe that this is a good thing. In fact, this kind of fraud and illegal activity hurts everyday Main Street investors. It also makes our capital markets less efficient, accurate, and fair to all investors.

Now, current law prohibits trading on material insider information in breach of a fiduciary duty under the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws. Let me just repeat that. Current law prohibits those activities.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice are the Federal agencies tasked with enforcing insider trading laws. Both agencies regularly use their authority to bring insider trading cases against these bad actors who violate our insider trading laws.

However, the bill we are discussing here today, H.R. 2655, is flawed and could potentially create even more confusion and uncertainty within the law of insider trading. It could expand liability for good-faith traders, which would weaken investor confidence, chill vital information-gathering, and hurt the efficiency of our markets.

I believe it is important to note that, once again, the SEC is not asking for this bill or, frankly, any other legislative help on this issue. That is, the cop on the beat is not saying we need additional tools. Moreover, Democrats have not identified a problem within the current body of law that inhibits the prosecution of bad actors who illegally trade on material, nonpublic information. Again, the regulators have the tools that they need.

Republican and Democrat SEC chairs alike, with vastly different approaches to enforcement matters, have expressed concerns over Congress codifying a prohibition on insider trading into one single statute, as we are doing. Specifically, they voiced concerns that Congress would write a law that would be both overly broad, yet too narrow. Now, that is an odd phrase.

Former SEC Chair Mary Jo White, during 2015 testimony--by the way, she was President Obama's SEC chair--before our Financial Services Committee, when asked whether or not Congress should pursue an explicit statutory prohibition, stated: ``I think it is challenging to codify it clearly in a way that is both not too broad and retains the strength of the common law.''

Additionally, former SEC Chair Jay Clayton voiced similar concerns that Congress could write an insider trading law that is both too broad and too narrow.

I want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut for his dedicated work over the years on this issue, and I appreciate his efforts to try and codify a specific insider trading prohibition.

However, codifying very nuanced case law and regulations that have been developed over decades to prohibit insider trading is a significant task and undertaking. We all know that case law does oftentimes dictate the nuances. I fear that this bill could add more confusion and uncertainty around insider trading law with rogue judges and prosecutors using the language to expand the bounds of insider trading laws.

It was mentioned that this bill passed this body 410-13, and I was one of the 13.

We have to ask ourselves: Why was the bill ignored by the Senate?

There isn't a compelling problem to solve is why it was ignored. This is a solution in search of a problem.

I believe H.R. 2655, the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, which we are debating today, is both too broad and too narrow, just as former SEC Chair White warned was possible, and I continue to be opposed to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me throw out one name--I guess it is actually, technically, two names: Dodd-Frank.

My friends on the other side wrote a massively expansive bill that did turn over all of that authority to come up and promulgate rules out of whole cloth.

What we are talking about here is a very key word: materiality.

We are having this exact debate about the environmental, social, and governance issues, the ESG of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the boundaries of those rules. This is the balance between making sure that the legislature and our constitutional powers do not contradict the powers that are given to those regulators.

Yet, at the same time, we need to make sure that the regulators, based on case law, based on experience and the flexibility that they may need to go and do a law enforcement action, that they have those tools and that they are not pulled back from them.

If the gentleman's sort of example was to hold true, then we would have to eliminate all corporate law and every single publicly traded company that incorporates in Delaware. Delaware's entire corporate structure is based on case law and what has gone on. It is widely accepted throughout the United States that it is solid and positive, and that is what we are trying to do here today.

We are not trying to hand over more power to the bureaucrats. We are trying to make sure that the system that is in place, that everybody understands the rules of the road, that they then are going to be used to be enforced.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding a missed vote due to attending a friend's funeral. Had I been present for roll call vote number 118, On Passage to the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for roll call vote number 119, On Passage to the 504 Credit Risk Management Improvement Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the Montague Wildcats on their incredible Division 4 golf state title at Forest Akers West Golf Course in East Lansing, MI.

This team has shown a great level of resilience and skill throughout this past year in their quest to the state title. Notably, the Wildcats displayed extraordinary talent on the course finishing with a combined team score of 343; a full 27 shots ahead of the nearest competitor.

I would like to congratulate each player and coach of the Montague Wildcats who played an integral role in capturing the state title:

Players: Mackenzie Goudreau, Gabriella Moreau, Katie Unger, Megan Brown, Orianna Bylsma, Isabelle McKeown, Claire Meacham, and Natalie Kellogg;

Coach: Phil Kerr.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Montague Wildcats Division 4, golf state title and for being a Michigan symbol of resilience in the face of this ongoing pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Montague Wildcats' powerlifter, Madison Diamond, on her state title in the 145-pound weight class at the State Powerlifting Meet in Ionia, MI.

Competing in high school sports this year has been a challenge with the ongoing pandemic. Nevertheless, Madison triumphed. In addition to her state title, Madison Diamond set the state record in deadlift for her weight class and then beat it two more times. The exclamation mark came with a 355-pound lift, totaling 710 pounds.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating this Montague Wildcat on her powerlifting state title and for being named the pound-for-pound champion across all weight classes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the exemplary career of the Walker Brothers on their selfless acts of service in the United States Military. This family embodies the definition of the all-American family and I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude for this West Michigan family.

All graduates of Fremont High School, these 11 brothers split between the branches of the Air force, the Marines, and the Army. Serving in places like Germany, Vietnam, Korea, and Thailand as well as domestically at bases across the United States.

I would like to celebrate these men:

Brothers: James Walker, Norman Walker, Charles Walker, Stephen Walker, Mark Walker, Richard Walker, Dennis Walker, David Walker, Gerald Walker, Frank Walker, and Robert Walker.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Walker family for their years of dedicated services to our country. Indeed, our country would not hold the cherished freedoms we have today if not for the bravery demonstrated by the Walker family.

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding a missed vote. Had I been present for Roll Call vote number 84, On Agreeing to the Rep. Wagner of Missouri Part B Amendment No. 40, I would have voted Yea.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the Mona Shores' Sailors on their incredible second consecutive D-2 football state title at Ford Field in Detroit, MI.

This team has shown a great level of resilience and skill throughout this past year. Notably, the Sailors put together a perfect season despite the challenges brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, boasting a 12-0 record, which is the best record in school history.

I would like to congratulate each player and coach of the Mona Shores' Sailors who played an integral role in capturing the state title:

Players: Keondre Pierce, Larry White, Gary Humphrey, Landon Thalman, Khyree Hamel, Demetri Roberson, Mark Konecny, Eli Farnum, Keegan Dekuiper, Dahmir Farnum, Minh Nguyen, Benjamin Payne, Jeff Lenartowicz, Elijah Johnson, KeWaun Farnum, Brady Rose, Karsen Marihugh, TaVonie Jackson, Drew Sandberg, Stephen Koziak, Sam Wahlberg, DJ Caviness, Bryce Sikkenga, Jesse Love, Theartric Theus III, Mason Klos, Kemper Millis, Dauson Trigg, Cody Crites, Luke Emmons, and Andrew Grimm.

Coaches: Matt Koziak, Aaron James, Brian Sikkenga, Greg Vargas, Dave Check, Kyle Brott, Tyler Vanbergen, Mike Koziak, Thom Grimm, and Chris Hilliker.

Team Support: Jack Nummerdor, Dan Shroeder, Jason Dykstra, Rick McAdams, Jimmy Merrill, Patrick Lamay, Carson Koziak, Braden Koziak, Payton Koziak, and Samual Sikkenga.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Mona Shores Sailors on their second consecutive Division 2 football state title, and for being a Michigan symbol of resilience in the face of this ongoing pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the Montague Wildcats on their incredible D-6 football state title at Ford Field in Detroit, MI.

This team has shown a great level of resilience and skill throughout this past year. Notably, the Wildcats put together a perfect season despite the challenges brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, boasting a 12-0 record, and winning their third state title in school history.

I would like to congratulate each player and coach of the Montague Wildcats who played an integral role in capturing the state title:

Players: Izac Jarka, Michael Moore, Zachery Nelson, Drew Collins, Rodney Brassfield, Andrew Kooi, Ian Degen, Colton Blanksrom, Try Mikkelsen, Chase Gowell, Tugg Nichols, Dylan Everett, Sam Smith, Reece Taylor, Owen Petersen, Nick Moss, Kade Johnson, Alec Waruszewski, Joel Booth, Walker Martin, Aaron Rolf, Dakota Croff-Wiegand, Silas Jancek, David Dobson, John Greiner, Chris Kessler, Hayden McDonald, and Luke Booth.

Coaches: Pat Collins, Brock Myers, Cody Kater, Craig Smith, Denny Barnes, Dan French, Brian Jaekel, Randy Mikkelsen, Brad Francis, Matt McDonald, Evan Eilers, and Jeff Stark.

Team Support: Tim Stoudt, Eric Greiner, Ron Arnson, Jace Collins, and Kellen Francis.

Administrative Support: Jeffrey Johnson, Troy Moran, and Jay Mulder.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Montague Wildcats on their Division 6, football state title and for being a Michigan symbol of resilience in the face of this ongoing pandemic.