Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Michigan, the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee for this opportunity.

I also want to start off by thanking the Energy and Commerce Committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their time and work on this issue.

Additionally, I would like also to thank my colleague, Debbie Dingell, for being an original cosponsor of H.R. 1109 and helping advance this bipartisan and, might I add, commonsense rule.

Based on current statute, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission takes the position that approval from the Commission is necessary for all mergers and acquisitions, no matter how small or insignificant the value of the facilities involved, even down to zero.

FERC's interpretation has led to trivial paperwork that bogs down the Commission and creates unnecessary red tape for American businesses, ultimately increasing utility bills for the consumer. H.R. 1109 will help reduce excessive paperwork burdens and bring down energy prices for American families.

This bipartisan solution unties FERC's hands and allows the Commission to ensure American consumers are getting the most affordable and reliable electricity possible in a commonsense sort of way. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1109.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1808, the Improving Support for Missing and Exploited Children Act of 2017.

For more than 30 years, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, or NCMEC, has operated a unique public-private partnership in order to build a national response to crimes affecting those we cherish most: our children.

I am grateful that the bill maintains language that I supported, which grants NCMEC the authority to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and first responders in identifying and recovering victims of child sex trafficking.

During the committee's hearing in March, we heard from NCMEC's director on how their ability to provide technical assistance has allowed them to work in tandem with law enforcement to recover numerous child sex trafficking victims.

Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to the day when no children are ever taken and abused, and this bill helps ensure NCMEC has the tools to get us one step closer to that goal.

I appreciate the bipartisan effort on this, and I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Branch County, Michigan, Sheriff Posse Deputy Michael Winter, who lost his life in the line of duty. He is survived by his wife, Connie, and two daughters, Cheyenne and Sierra.

Deputy Winter was known as a committed family man with a sense of humor and a big smile. He loved being around horses and loved the posse.

From his time in the United States Navy to the Branch County Sheriff's Posse, Deputy Winter was the type of person who put his community and country before himself. He is a hero in every sense of the word.

This week, during National Police Week, his name was carved into the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, D.C. It is a lasting tribute to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect us.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful nation, we honor Deputy Winter's memory and his service to Branch County and our country. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the myths being spun by the other side of the aisle that refused to read 129 pages of a bill, the Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable.

My constituents have been asking for relief from this collapsing law for years. They can no longer afford to pay more for less; and refusing to act is not an option.

Under ObamaCare, out-of-pocket expenses have skyrocketed not just for people on exchanges, but for all patients. Premium increases are nearly four times larger than previously projected.

Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, seem content with the current flawed system which puts the government in charge of people's health and promises coverage that is going away.

Let's vote to increase choice, lower costs, enhance protections, truly cover preexisting conditions, and get Washington out of the way so that patients and their doctors are once again at the center of healthcare decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Salvation Army of Monroe County for 100 years of service in the community.

The Salvation Army of Monroe County actively ministers to both the physical and spiritual needs of those in our area.

Under the leadership of Maj. Louise Blessing and Lt. Karl Blessing, the organization currently provides a wide range of programs, including a food pantry, homeless shelter, youth programs, emergency assistance, casework services, worship services, and much more.

Through all these initiatives, they offer a helping hand to the most vulnerable and spread God's love in their sphere of influence.

Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Salvation Army of Monroe County are woven into the very fabric of our community. They play a critical role in rebuilding lives, restoring hope, and serving those in need.

I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the Salvation Army of Monroe County's 100 year anniversary, and I pray for many more years of fruitful contributions to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Brandon Martz and his family from Jackson County to our Nation's Capitol.

They are here with the help of the Dream Foundation, which fulfills dreams for terminally ill young people and adults. Brandon is 18 years old and has been battling Duchenne muscular dystrophy since he was a toddler.

One of the things we talked about today in my office was the 21st Century Cures Act and the need to expedite the development of new cures by prioritizing medical research and streamlining the FDA approval process.

Signed into law in December of last year, this landmark initiative will bring hope for patients and families suffering from some of the worst diseases and hopefully fulfill many dreams.

Mr. Speaker, it was an honor to spend time with Brandon, his brother, and his parents today and play a part in helping Brandon's dream become a reality.

I hope their time in Washington offers an opportunity to create many lasting memories together as a family and fulfill many dreams.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1304, the Self-Insurance Protection Act. I thank my good friend, Dr. Phil Roe, for his leadership and insights on this issue.

As the Affordable Care Act continues its death spiral--and indeed it does, very clearly, and ultimately will leave people without insurance--too many small businesses in the process and working families in my district have been left without real options for healthcare coverage that they can afford.

Self-insured plans are one solution that small businesses have tried to push back against these rising costs. These policies provide employers flexibility to design a healthcare plan tailored to the unique needs of their workers and their families. Last year, over 60 percent of employers who offered healthcare coverage utilized self- insured plans.

Unfortunately, the previous administration pursued regulations that would jeopardize access to self-insured plans by redefining stop-loss insurance as traditional health insurance under Federal law. Stop-loss insurance does not pay our medical claims; rather, it is a tool--I remind you--that simply provides protections for employers to guard against a catastrophic medical claim.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents need more affordable healthcare options, not fewer; and the bill before us will stop any future administration from putting harmful limitations on self-insured plans. To achieve meaningful healthcare reform, we must promote flexibility and innovative options, not curtail them.

H.R. 1304 provides much-needed certainty to the workers and employers who access quality care through self-insured healthcare plans. As employers and their employees look to plan for the future, the Self- Insurance Protection Act will help provide some long-term certainty that these affordable health insurance options are available. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and promoting healthcare choice for American workers and for their employers.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the privilege of attending the Monroe County Ducks Unlimited annual dinner. More than 1,000 people came out to the MB&T Expo Center to celebrate our hunting and fishing heritage.

As a lifelong outdoorsman, I have been a proud supporter of conservation policies that protect our wetlands and wildlife habitats. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is a model example of a public- private partnership that has been invaluable to the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

The GLRI has received widespread bipartisan support because of the economic and environmental benefits it brings to Lake Erie, the State of Michigan, and the entire Great Lakes region. Mr. Speaker, this critical initiative is getting results and needs to be preserved.

I want to thank Monroe County Ducks Unlimited for all of their conservation efforts, and I will continue

working to ensure that future generations can enjoy our precious natural resources just like we do today.

Mr. Speaker, in a point of personal privilege, I want to welcome my newest granddaughter, Hanna Belle, born less than 2 hours ago in Africa. I welcome her to this life, and God bless her.

Mr. Speaker, for 7 years, I have heard story after story from people in my district about how the Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable.

Families and small businesses are paying more for less, and insurers are dropping out of the marketplaces, leaving behind fewer options. Government-run health care isn't working, and we are repealing and replacing ObamaCare like we promised our constituents we would do.

The American Health Care Act is the first step of a three-step process to repair our broken healthcare system. This bill moves power away from Washington and puts doctors and patients at the center of their healthcare decisions. It reforms and strengthens Medicaid and gives States the flexibility to innovate and best meet the needs of their citizens.

This patient-centered approach will bring costs down, increase choice and competition, and provide important protections for patients with preexisting conditions.

Mr. Speaker, these are the types of things we promised, and doing nothing is not an option. May I remind my colleague from the other side of the aisle: I have seen those numbers. My constituents will not simply walk away and do nothing just because the other side says that they will be uncovered. Now they will have a choice. Those thousands of people will not walk away. They will choose something better for them. There will be thousands of people that have insurance that covers their needs, and not what, Mr. Speaker, my colleague says they will do. They are not that stupid. They won't walk away.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1101, the Small Business Health Fairness Act, a bill that will help people in Michigan and across the country by expanding affordable coverage for workers and their families.

I thank our colleague, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, for introducing this legislation. I really enjoyed hearing the gentleman from Texas and his comments about this being common sense. Representative Sam Johnson of Texas defines common sense and patriotism. He has tirelessly championed this bill for years, and it is a pleasure to join him in pushing for these positive reforms.

Mr. Speaker, health care in this country has become simply unaffordable for far too many small businesses and working families. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has proved to be an utter failure for most people in the United States. It is snowballing out of control and rolling over working families and small businesses.

Ninety-five percent of small businesses have reported increased health insurance costs over the past 5 years. A 2015 study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses found that the cost of health insurance is the principal reason that small businesses do not offer coverage.

As a result, since 2008, 36 percent of small businesses with fewer than 10 employees have stopped offering healthcare coverage to their employees. It is not that they don't want to offer healthcare benefits. The truth of the matter is that small businesses have been hit especially hard by the government takeover of health care. Under ObamaCare, the working families I speak to in my district are paying more for less and finding they have fewer options for coverage.

H.R. 1101 is a key part of the third phase of our efforts to reform our healthcare system so it works for all Americans. It aims to increase the negotiating power of small businesses so they can bring down health insurance costs for their employees.

Right now, small businesses are often on an unequal playing field with larger companies and unions. Because they have few employees, small businesses have limited bargaining power when it comes to negotiating for lower insurance costs for their workers.

Mr. Speaker, this bill levels the playing field for small businesses, allowing them to band together through association health plans and negotiate the best deals to provide health care at a lower cost. It also represents an important step toward purchasing health insurance across State lines.

Today's vote is an immediate first step to help job creators provide affordable healthcare options to their employees and a transition toward a patient-centered healthcare system.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for leading this floor debate today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017.

Regardless of the chatter that I believe simply confuses what we want to do in good government, this bill, H.R. 1004, is a good government transparency bill that is simple in nature and seeks to preserve the integrity of the regulatory process; specifically, the public comment period.

Whether it is EPA or the Department of Labor or any other agencies or departments, they have their purpose, but they have to follow the law. The public comment period is an essential part of upholding our democratic values because it ensures that Americans will have their voices heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process.

Agencies must take the comment period seriously. Unfortunately, we have seen instances where agencies seem to believe that the regulatory process is simply a perfunctory act that the agency must undertake in order to reach a prearranged outcome.

This became abundantly clear during the EPA's Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rulemaking process. During that process, Mr. Chairman, the EPA undertook a campaign to solicit support and artificially inflate the positive reaction to the WOTUS rule. The EPA used the skewed results as evidence of public support.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record two letters coming from the National Association of Home Builders and the Michigan Farm Bureau to attest to this problem.

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.

Hon. Timothy Walberg,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Walberg: On behalf of the 140,000

members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB),

I am writing to express NAHB's strong support for H.R. 1004,

the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017. This legislation would

force agencies to follow an open and transparent federal

regulatory rulemaking process by making all aspects of a

rulemaking publicly available and preventing federal agencies

from illegally influencing the public in order to generate

support for a rulemaking.

Federal agencies are prohibited, by law, from engaging in

lobbying, grassroots, and propaganda activities designed to

advance a policy agenda. However, in recent rulemakings, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ignored these

restrictions and used social media platforms to perpetuate

propaganda campaigns that advance their rulemakings. These

actions only support the notion that the agency is not

interested in a transparent and fair rulemaking process.

An excellent example of this is when the EPA created a

social media campaign on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to

counter opposition to its ``Waters of the US'' rulemaking.

The agency concealed the fact that its social media messages

were coming from within the EPA and deceptively engaged in

lobbying efforts designed to kill legislation that was not

favorable to their proposed rulemaking. In December 2015, the

Government Accountability Office released a report outlining

how the EPA participated in covert propaganda and grassroots

lobbying and condemned the agency for violating federal law.

Federal agencies must respect and uphold the law, and the

passage of H.R. 1004 will help to ensure that federal

agencies are not lobbying against America's small businesses.

For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Oversight and

Government Reform Committee to support H.R. 1004, the

Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, in order to bring

transparency and neutrality to the regulatory process.

Thank you for giving consideration to our views.

Sincerely,

James W. Tobin III.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office concluded the EPA overstepped and issued a report saying the EPA violated the law and undertook ``covert propaganda'' and grassroots lobbying during the process.

My bill simply seeks to preserve the spirit and purpose of the regulatory process by simply telling agencies that they need to keep to the facts and not solicit support when they ought to be soliciting constructive comments.

H.R. 1004 simply requires an agency to; one, identify itself as the source of information; two, clearly state whether the agency is accepting public comments or considering alternatives; and, three, and most importantly, speak about the regulations in a neutral, unbiased tone.

People need to have the confidence that the Federal agencies, regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration, are open to their insights an constructive criticism.

H.R. 1004 will restore the integrity to our regulatory process by ensuring agencies are honestly asking for feedback, constructive criticism, and dialogue about how to improve upon the agency's existing thoughts, not advocating for a predetermined outcome.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan issue. This bill passed the House last Congress with bipartisan support. In fact, a similar version was offered by my colleague, Representative Peterson from Minnesota, as an amendment to H.R. 5 earlier this year. That amendment was approved with strong bipartisan support.

So, once again, I urge my colleagues to support the Regulatory Integrity Act.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen more troubling signs this week that things continue to get worse under the healthcare law.

Humana announced they are dropping out of the ObamaCare marketplace next year. The CEO of Aetna said that ObamaCare is in a ``death spiral.''

Families in Michigan and across the country are left with fewer choices and soaring costs. Mari, from Jackson, in my district, is one of them. Her premiums nearly quadrupled last year under ObamaCare; and this year, her premiums went up so high, she could not afford to pay them. So she and her husband, who is self-employed, dropped the plan and now are going without any health insurance at all.

The status quo is simply unsustainable, and we are working to provide relief to families who are struggling. This will be an orderly, step- by-step process as we transition to patient-centered solutions that lower costs, increase choices, maintain preexisting conditions coverage, and meet the needs of all Americans. That is what Mari and every single American deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 66.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 66, a resolution to protect retirement savers.

During the final days of the Obama administration--in fact, the final hours--the Department of Labor created a regulatory loophole that threatens the retirement security of working families. We are here today to use Congress' authority under the Congressional Review Act to close that loophole by blocking a misguided regulation from taking effect.

The regulation paves the way for States to force certain employers to automatically enroll their employees into government IRAs. States would be allowed to skirt Federal law and deny workers important protections designed to safeguard their retirement savings.

The Obama administration's action is somewhat perplexing. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, has enjoyed strong bipartisan support for decades. As President Ford said when he signed the law, the American people have ``greater assurances that retirement dollars will be there when they are needed.'' Yet, over 40 years later, the same administration that frequently touted the importance of consumer protections moved to exempt States from ERISA.

The question is why. To facilitate the creation of government-run plans that

would lack basic protections for retirement savers? As a result, workers and retirees would have nowhere to turn if their savings were mismanaged.

Let's be honest about what this regulation is really about. It is part of an assault on small business retirement plans that began under the Obama administration. First, small businesses were hit by the fiduciary rule that would make it harder for them to access the financial advice they need to set up retirement plans for their employees. Then the Obama administration created a last-minute regulatory loophole that could discourage small businesses from offering retirement plans in the first place. As a result, many families could soon realize, If you like your 401(k) plan, you may not be able to keep it.

Because of this loophole, taxpayers also are at risk. Many of the States leading the charge on these government-run plans have a long history of mismanaging public employee pensions. Today there is an estimated $5 trillion in unfunded State pension promises--$5 trillion. That figure is completely unsustainable. It begs the question: Will taxpayers or retirement savers foot the bill if these government-run IRAs are similarly mismanaged?

However, we are not here today to debate the merits of State policy. To be clear, States should be free to experiment with new retirement options, and more options are certainly needed. It is up to the voters in each State to hold their elected officials accountable. The point of this debate is that States should not be exempt from a law that has, for decades, provided important protections for retirement savers. If States want to come up with new ways to help workers save for retirement, they can. But they should follow the law in the process.

The goal of this resolution is simple. It is to uphold protections Congress--including Members of both parties--have long afforded retirement savers. Today we can close a regulatory loophole that would be detrimental to the retirement security of hardworking Americans, and we can ensure retirement savers in every State continue to have the same protections under Federal law. I urge my colleagues to support strong protections for retirement savers by voting in favor of H.J. Res. 66.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the immediate past chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the point that I would make again is not the fact that we are trying to stop States from doing this. In fact, this CRA does not do that at all. It just simply says we express our concern that States would be allowed as a result of what was put through in midnight fashion that exempted States from having to come under the same protections of ERISA that we would expect to be covered for all retirement plans. That is the challenge. We want to make sure that retirees' incomes are protected in a secure, safe way, and that is the value of ERISA. This proposal or the rule that was put through did not cover that, and that is our concern, again, protecting retirees.

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

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

I want to make note that, as we discuss this here today, there have been points made about businesses wanting this change, they want to work with the States, and they are concerned about liabilities. Well, if that were the case, we wouldn't have endorsements of this coming from the Chamber of Commerce, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Benefits Council, NFIB, just looking through, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, National Federation of Independent Business, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and I could go on and on, businesses and the business associations and groups that deal with this and have concern about their employees, their retirees, having a good and safe mechanism by which to have their retirement savings protected, supporting our efforts here to take back what took place under the cover of darkness, as it were, which took retiree savings off the benefit of ERISA. I just want that to be made clear.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We are certainly willing to work with the States and would concur that there ought to be a laboratory.

But again, our concern, and basically the only concern, that this resolution deals with is that they be managed in such a way that they come under the protections given under ERISA. And why do we say that?

Well, we look at, for instance, Illinois' unfunded liability. We are looking at $114.8 billion at the end of fiscal year 2016--a State plan managed by, yes, an outside manager--but $114.8 billion under. We look at California Public Employees' Retirement System, CalPERS, which has a $228.2 billion shortfall in funding. Oregon's unfunded actuarial liability of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, again, managed by someone for Oregon, of $21.8 billion. If we looked at it all put together, we have over $5 trillion unfunded liability for State plans managed by some outside source.

That is where our concern comes from--this rule that was put through--that takes people out of the protections of ERISA. So we are saying: Have at it, States, but do it according to the rules and the protections that are there. That is all we are asking. We want retirees' savings to be protected for the purposes that they planned for and not come up short some day because of a lack of care and the coverage of ERISA on their plans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are not opposing voluntary plans. We are not opposing States setting up plans that will encourage retirement. We are not opposing that. We are just saying we want to make sure they are protected under the same requirements of ERISA that all other plans are. We want to make sure that those dollars are there when the people need them. That is all we are saying. We are not opposed to voluntary or plans for retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), my colleague and good friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter, undersigned, representing thousands of businesses, individual employees, and retirees from almost two dozen specific groups in support of H.J. Res. 66.

February 13, 2017.

To the Members of the United States Congress: The

undersigned organizations, representing thousands of

businesses, express our support for H.J. Res. 66 and H.J.

Res. 67, resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional

Review Act (``CRA'') to invalidate the Department of Labor's

(``DOL'') ``safe harbor'' regulations on Savings Arrangements

Established by State and Political Subdivisions for Non-

Governmental Employees.

These ``safe harbor'' regulations allow states and cities

to mandate private employer participation in state-sponsored

automatic IRA programs. It also provides that states that

offer these programs are not subject to ERISA despite

considerable opinions to the contrary. Thus the DOL is

encouraging state and local governments to provide private

sector employees retirement programs that do not have the

same high-level protections as other private employer-

sponsored plans.

Below we highlight a number of our concerns with the ``safe

harbor.''

Lost worker protections--States offering these plans to

private sector employees are not subject to ERISA, therefore

limiting the protections for workers in these plans.

Different standards from state to state result in an

administrative quagmire for employers--States can and will

have different rules for their programs, so employers

operating in multiple states, or just with workers from

multiple states, will have to track the complex web of

varying rules to ensure compliance.

Fewer employer plans, especially among small businesses--If

a state mandates auto-IRAs, some employers will decide to

avoid taking on the work of offering their own plans and let

the state take it on instead, resulting in the loss of

significant retirement savings opportunities for their

workers.

Mismanagement of state pension funds--Many states have

mismanaged their public employee retirement systems, and it's

not clear they'll do a better job controlling assets of

millions of small private sector savers. Also, some state

pension funds restrict investments to favor state initiatives

or engage in politically motivated investment and divestment

schemes instead of investing in the economic interest of the

workers.

Imposes a mandate on private employers--The ``safe harbor''

requires that the state program mandate employer

participation even though retirement savings plans are

traditionally voluntary.

We urge Congress to take timely action under the CRA to

vitiate these misguided regulations. We thank you for

addressing this important issue.

Sincerely,

Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Benefits

Council, American Composites Manufacturers Association,

Financial Services Institute, Financial Services Roundtable,

Heating Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors

International (HARDI), Insured Retirement Institute,

International Franchise Association, Investment Company

Institute, National Association of Insurance and Financial

Advisors (NAIFA), National Black Chamber of Commerce.

National Electrical Contractors Association, National

Federation of Independent Business, National Retail

Federation, Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles

Association (SMART), Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Council, Small Business Council of America, Small Business

Legislative Council, Society for Human Resource Management,

The ESOP Association, The Latino Coalition, U.S. Chamber of

Commerce.

State Chapters of NAIFA

NAIFA--Alabama, NAIFA--Alaska, NAIFA--Arizona, NAIFA--

Arkansas, NAIFA--California, NAIFA--Colorado, NAIFA--

Connecticut, NAIFA--Delaware, NAIFA--Florida, NAIFA--Georgia,

NAIFA Greater Washington D.C., NAIFA--Guam, NAIFA--Hawaii,

NAIFA--Idaho.

NAIFA--Illinois, NAIFA--Indiana, NAIFA--Iowa, NAIFA--

Kansas, NAIFA--Kentucky, NAIFA--Louisiana, NAIFA--Maine,

NAIFA--Maryland, NAIFA--Massachusetts, NAIFA--Michigan,

NAIFA--Minnesota, NAIFA--Mississippi, NAIFA--Missouri,

NAIFA--Montana.

NAIFA--Nebraska, NAIFA--Nevada, NAIFA--New Hampshire,

NAIFA--New Jersey, NAIFA--New Mexico, NAIFA--New

York, NAIFA--North Carolina, NAIFA--North Dakota, NAIFA--

Ohio, NAIFA--Oklahoma, NAIFA--Oregon, NAIFA--Pennsylvania,

NAIFA--Puerto Rico, NAIFA--Rhode Island.

NAIFA--South Carolina, NAIFA--South Dakota, NAIFA--

Tennessee, NAIFA--Texas, NAIFA--Utah, NAIFA--Vermont, NAIFA--

Virginia, NAIFA--Washington, NAIFA--West Virginia, NAIFA--

Wisconsin, NAIFA--Wyoming.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just make one comment that, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had both Houses and the White House and the opportunity to do these reforms, they weren't done. Yet, now, when we stand with great concern because of a midnight rule that was put through that takes away the security of retirees in programs that will be, as I said earlier, foisted upon employers to automatically enroll their employees into government-run IRAs--allowing the same States to skirt the Federal law of ERISA--and deny workers important protections, we are pushed back on.

I have some concern about that. When the opportunity to do what they say they want to be done could have been done with both Houses under control of the same party and the White House, this was not undertaken. Yet we are called out and told that we are hurting retirees when, in fact, we are giving assurances to retirees that you will come under the same protections regardless of where you go, and we expect that to be the case because it has worked. That is decried. I find that less than objective in its honesty.

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

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

In response to the gentlewoman from California, I would just say that much of what we have been doing for the past 4 weeks on the floor, including today, is trying to give a shot in the arm to our economy, to our workers, our workforce, our retirees, and savers to take off some of the traps that have been put in place that have frustrated this economy and the growth of this economy for 8 years.

There is a reason for what took place at the ballot box. And the expectation is that we move to take some of the clamps of the Federal Government off the private sector, the States, the local communities, and, more importantly, the citizens of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I express appreciation for the full-throated debate that went on here. It is good to do that.

It is good for the opportunity to make it very clear that retirement security is a significant challenge facing this country. We have said that. I am glad that on the floor of the House today both sides of the aisle indicated concerns for that. Far too many men and women are struggling to save for their retirement years.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen regulations like the fiduciary rule that will make it harder for low- and middle-income families to save for retirement. And we have seen a regulation that would strip away important protections for retirement savers.

As policymakers, we must do more to expand retirement options for workers. That is a given. That we can agree on. However, the regulatory loophole created by the Obama administration is clearly not the answer.

I want to remind my colleagues that this resolution does not prevent States from coming up with new retirement options for workers. That is not what this resolution is about, and simply reading it will assure you of that.

This resolution is about ensuring every American has strong protections for a secure retirement.

I urge my colleagues to protect retirement savers by voting in favor of H.J. Res. 66.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 116, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 67) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by qualified State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 67.

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

I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 67, the second of two resolutions the House is debating today to ensure strong protections for retirement savers.

There are two parts to the regulatory loophole we are seeking to close today. First, the Obama administration created a sweetheart deal that would allow States to deny important protections for retirement savers. Then, a second regulation was issued to extend that sweetheart deal to cover certain cities and counties.

The resolution we are debating right now would block the second regulation and ensure retirement savers in every city are afforded longstanding protections under Federal law. It would also ensure employers continue to have clear rules of the road for retirement plans. The last thing employers, who are trying to provide benefits for their employees, need is a confusing patchwork of rules that vary across cities and counties, even in the same State.

As I mentioned during the earlier debate, States and cities should be free to experiment with new ways to help workers save for retirement. All this resolution says is that they must follow the law and provide retirement savers strong protections. That is a commonsense idea that we should all get behind.

I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 67.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Francis Rooney), who evidenced his complete commitment to meeting the needs of all people by receiving an ambassadorship and performing duties very well to the Holy See.

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

Again, I just--for matters of accuracy about the legislation that is in front of us, I think it ought to be clear that both sides of the aisle can agree that we ought to encourage retirement savings and we ought to be willing to look for choices, opportunities, variety, all of that, and allow States, local communities, cities, to be creative, to look for a means by which we can foster increased retirement savings.

All this legislation is doing, though, is saying that we want those approaches to be protected for the retirees. That is all we are saying. We are not opposing States. We are not opposing cities. We are not opposing counties, municipalities, from establishing plans. But we want them to come under ERISA, the same requirements that other people come under, and make sure that people aren't sold a bill of goods that they lose in the future. That is all we are saying.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make that clear. None of the proposals or the statements that are being made that what we are trying to do is stop people from having retirement options is accurate. We just want them to be protected.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the full-throated debate that went on here in the discussion of a most important issue. I am grateful that ERISA was in place for my father, a tool and die maker, a machinist. He didn't have pensions, but he was able to, as a result of making little- by-little allocations to a retirement savings plan, set aside money to make sure that, most specifically, my mother was taken care of--and she was--as a result of protections that were put in place, requirements that were put in place, and a savings plan for retirement outside of any pension. Her basic needs were cared for until the end of her life.

So I certainly resonate with the desire to make sure middle-income, middle class families, and everyone has the opportunity for secure retirement savings. We all support creating new options for retirement savers. Unfortunately, the regulatory loophole created by the Obama administration is not the answer.

Every American, regardless of what city or State they live in, deserves strong protections and secure retirement. That is why, for over 40 years, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act has been the law of the land. Denying those longstanding protections to certain workers is a completely backwards approach that undermines the retirement security of working families, and I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want that to happen. We agree on that.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 67 to ensure workers and retirees in every city across the country continue to have the legal safeguards they need to retire with security and peace of mind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight an exciting, new development that builds on Michigan's leadership in the auto industry.

Earlier this week, General Motors and Honda announced a joint venture to produce an advanced hydrogen fuel cell system. With an investment of $85 million, this operation will bring new, good-paying jobs, and it will be based at a manufacturing facility in southeast Michigan. This is just the latest example of how Michigan continues to be on the forefront of automotive and technological innovation that has the potential to revolutionize the industry.

Mr. Speaker, that is not all. A few weeks ago, GM also announced a plan to invest an additional $1 billion in United States manufacturing, which will create thousands of jobs for American workers.

With our State's world-class workforce and commitment to cutting-edge research, Michigan will remain a global automotive leader for generations to come.