[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4024-H4030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1500, CONSUMERS FIRST ACT; 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1994, SETTING EVERY COMMUNITY UP 
   FOR RETIREMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2019; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS 
  DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 24, 2019, THROUGH MAY 31, 2019; AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 389 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 389

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1500) to require the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau to meet its statutory purpose, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-15 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1994) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage retirement 
     savings, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
     thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from May 
     24, 2019, through May 31, 2019--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall

[[Page H4025]]

     not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of 
     rule XV.
       Sec. 6.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of May 23, 2019, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 
     clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure making 
     supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2019.
       Sec. 7.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of May 23, 2019, relating to a measure making 
     supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2019.
       Sec. 8.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 2, 2019, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2020.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met on Monday 
night and reported a rule, House Resolution 389, which covers a lot of 
territory. It provides for consideration of H.R. 1500, the Consumers 
First Act under a structured rule which makes in order 17 amendments.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1994, the Setting 
Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act, or the SECURE Act, 
under a closed rule which self-executes Chairman Neal's manager's 
amendment.
  Additionally, the rule provides same-day authority and suspension 
authority through Thursday, May 23, and it provides filing authority 
for the Committee on Appropriations through 5 o'clock p.m., Sunday, 
June 2.
  Finally, the rule provides recess instructions through next Friday, 
May 31.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, reverses the anti-
consumer actions taken by this administration to ensure the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau once again serves the needs of American 
consumers.
  More than a decade ago, the United States experienced one of the 
worst financial crises in our history, caused, in part, by a failure to 
have strong protections for consumers of financial products and 
services.
  Through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act, Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be a 
strong and independent agency with the mandate to protect consumers 
from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the financial 
marketplace. When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was first 
stood up, it was a powerful ally to consumers in middle-class families 
across the country.
  Under former Director Richard Cordray, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau returned nearly $12 billion to over 30 million 
consumers who were harmed, handled over 1.2 million consumer complaints 
about financial institutions, and implemented new safeguards to better 
protect consumers who utilize a wide range of consumer financial 
products and services.
  Unfortunately, the Trump administration has politicized the agency, 
weakened supervision and enforcement, and reduced transparency and 
accountability. The Bureau has dismantled protections for Active Duty 
servicemembers, weakened fair lending enforcement, blocked payday loan 
cases, and terminated the Consumers Advisory Board. These are just a 
few examples of how the agency is failing to meet its mission.
  The Consumers First Act would block the Trump Administration's agenda 
and ensure the CFPB starts working for the people once again.
  Among other things, the bill would direct the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau leadership to reverse all anti-consumer actions taken 
under this administration, including resuming Military Lending Act 
oversight. The bill restores the supervisory and enforcement powers of 
the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity. It also reestablishes 
a dedicated student loan office to help protect students as they find 
ways to finance their education. Importantly, the bill requires 
adequate agency staffing across the Bureau, including for supervision 
and enforcement.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her work on this legislation, 
which I cosponsored and is supported by 51 consumer civil rights, 
housing, and labor organizations.
  This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1994, the SECURE 
Act. I am also a cosponsor of this bill to make it easier for American 
workers to save for their future. One of my number-one priorities is 
ensuring all Coloradans and all Americans have the opportunity to find 
a good job, can afford to send their kids to college, and have 
something left over for their retirement.
  Unfortunately, nearly half of Americans in the private sector work 
for an employer who does not offer a retirement plan. A 2018 study by 
the National Institute on Retirement Security found over 100 million 
people of working age have few, if any, retirement assets.
  The SECURE Act is a bipartisan bill which was approved unanimously by 
the Ways and Means Committee, and I am eager for the House to pass this 
important legislation. The SECURE Act would make it easier for small 
businesses to offer retirement plans to their employees by eliminating 
outdated barriers to the use of multiple employer plans and improving 
the quality of these providers. This could result in hundreds of 
thousands of new retirement accounts to help people save.
  Additionally, the bill would allow long-time part-time workers to 
participate in 401(k) plans and create a new tax credit to incentivize 
small employers to set up retirement plans for their employees. It 
would also add more flexibility for how long individuals could 
contribute to their retirement accounts, and when they must begin 
drawing down on those accounts.
  This legislation is a big step forward in helping Americans save and 
prepare for retirement, and I am proud to support it. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I want to thank my friend from Colorado for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  It is a close-knit bunch of folks up there on the Rules Committee, 
Madam Speaker. If you have not been by recently, you ought to come by. 
There are only 13 of us there. It is easy to remember everybody's name, 
but you don't go to the Rules Committee when you have important 
bipartisan legislation to bring to the House floor. You go to the 
suspension calendar for that.
  You go to the Rules Committee when you have contentious pieces of 
legislation to bring to the floor. I regret that we are here today on 
things that are absolutely contentious that could have been absolutely 
partnership bills.
  I want to reference first H.R. 1500. That is the bill my friend from 
Colorado spoke about as it relates to the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. He is absolutely right. The way this Congress set up the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Democrats were running this 
institution and President Obama was in the White House was to make it a 
completely administration-driven agency with no accountability to 
Congress whatsoever. That was a mistake.
  But the folks who set it up liked the team that was running it at the 
time, and so our efforts in the minority to stop that from happening 
were rebuffed. Now we are here today, Madam Speaker, and you might 
think that we have a list of legislative fixes to the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. Not so.
  I encourage you to pick up a copy of H.R. 1500 just to see what those 
fixes

[[Page H4026]]

might be. It is a 40-page bill. You have to get to page 21 before 
accusations and assertions against former Director Mick Mulvaney end, 
and the important work, like changing the way we reference the agency 
by name, begins.
  I don't have any language today. No amendments were offered in the 
Rules Committee last night, Madam Speaker, to talk about all of the 
things that former Director Cordray did while he was there. The list of 
things that he did that I don't like are long. The list of things that 
he did that I thought violated the actual text of the law is pretty 
long.
  But he is gone, and we have the ability to fix anything we want to 
fix that he did. So no amendments were offered to impugn the integrity 
of the former director. Well, not the former director, Mr. Cordray; but 
the former director, Mick Mulvaney, yes, acting director. There are 21 
pages of a 40-page bill dedicated to personal attacks on the former 
director.
  Madam Speaker, if we wanted to do something about the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau that brought its authority out of 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue and right back here to where it belongs in Article 
I, we would make this agency subject to congressional appropriations. 
This is a bipartisan issue.
  If you want to find something that we agree on as an institution, 
let's talk about making Article I the lawmaker in this country, rather 
than Article II. Let's talk about taking it out of the White House's 
hands and putting it back into the people's hands on Capitol Hill. You 
will not find that idea in these pages.
  It is a disappointment because we could be doing something in 
partnership. Standing for consumers is a shared value, not a divisive 
one.
  I go now to the bill coming out of the Ways and Means Committee, H.R. 
1994. Madam Speaker, as my friend from Colorado referenced, this bill 
passed unanimously out of the Ways and Means Committee. Unanimously.
  Take a look at the men and women on the Ways and Means Committee. I 
think there are 42 of them. These are not shrinking violets on the Ways 
and Means Committee. I see a couple of them out here. I won't call 
anybody out by name--Mr. Panetta--but they are not shrinking violets on 
this committee. These are serious public policy advocates who represent 
very diverse parts of the country and who fight hard for the values 
that their constituents represent.
  Unanimously, they came together as a committee, Madam Speaker, to 
change the rules for retirement, to make it easier for families to 
save; to change the rules around college savings plans so that families 
who ran into challenges in secondary years, families whose kids develop 
special needs and might not be going on to college, but who have very 
real needs today, to allow those dollars to be tapped by those families 
to serve the educational needs of their children.
  Unanimously it passed the committee. In fact, I will read from the 
committee report. This is not something that was done lightly in 
committee, Madam Speaker. We are talking about hundreds of pages of 
legislation, hundreds of pages of a committee report. This was a 
thoughtfully designed and crafted piece of legislation.
  The committee said this:

       The committee believes that expanding 529 plans will help 
     families save for education expenses that meet each family's 
     unique needs.

  We run into that problem often, Madam Speaker. We try to do something 
that is good for America, and it turns out that 330 million Americans 
have different needs and priorities. So the Ways and Means avoided a 
one-size-fits-all solution, recognizing those unique needs. I will read 
on.
  The committee says:

       By allowing tax-free distributions for apprenticeship 
     expenses, homeschooling expenses, student loan repayments, 
     elementary and secondary expenses, in addition to tuition, 
     families can customize the use of their education savings to 
     make education more affordable.

  We didn't read that on the headline of any major newspaper when the 
Ways and Means passed that unanimously. I am sure there was something 
in the headlines of that major newspaper about wars in foreign lands. I 
am sure there was something in the newspaper that day about partisan 
politics and how folks were poking each other with sharp rhetorical 
sticks.
  There was not a word about how the men and women of the people's 
House on the Ways and Means Committee came together unanimously, not 
because it wasn't hard to craft solutions. It is hard to craft 
solutions, but they came together unanimously on consensus language to 
move out of committee.
  It sounds like I am going to tell a story with a happy ending, Madam 
Speaker, and I should be. This should be a story about how we get 
things done, but what happened last night that you also won't see on 
the front page of the paper is, we took this consensus product that was 
passed unanimously by Republicans and Democrats, and we took it up 
there to the Rules Committee.
  On a straight party-line vote, we ripped out all of the language 
protecting families who were trying to help their children at home; 
children who may not be getting everything they need through the public 
schools and so they get additional education at home; families that may 
have opted out of the public school system because they couldn't get 
what their children need, and they are homeschooling their children.
  This language that was agreed upon unanimously in a bipartisan way, 
was ripped out in a party-line vote in the Rules Committee last night. 
We will never vote on it in this Chamber, Madam Speaker.
  The Ways and Means Committee in a long committee report, long 
committee language, they deliberated over this language and concluded 
that the right thing to do was to help all American families. But 
somewhere between that unanimous vote in committee and late last night 
in the Rules Committee, the decision came down from on high--and by on 
high I do mean your side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, because when you 
sit in the Speaker's chair, you have that kind of authority. The Rules 
Committee is, in fact, the Speaker's committee--that said we are going 
to rip this language out.
  We offered an amendment last night. And I think it is only right that 
folks come to sit here to watch the people's business. They think that 
we are going to operate a transparent building here, and we work very 
hard to do that.

                              {time}  1300

  We offered an amendment last night in the Rules Committee to allow a 
simple vote of the people's House on this provision. If you don't like 
parents supplementing their students' education at home, so be it. I 
don't understand it, but so be it. But let's have a vote on it here 
just like they did in the Ways and Means Committee. On a party-line 
basis, the amendment to allow the people's House to have a vote on this 
provision was defeated.
  You might not have noticed it when the Reading Clerk was reading, 
Madam Speaker. I don't want to tell you how long that took to read. We 
have a lot of things packaged in this bill. You will have to go all the 
way down to the 12th section of the rule, and the important words are: 
modified by the amendment printed in part B of the Rules Committee 
report, modified by part B of the amendment printed in the Rules 
Committee report.
  I will translate that for you, Madam Speaker. That means with no vote 
of this institution whatsoever and with no consultation or input from 
the Ways and Means Committee that crafted this legislation, we are 
going to revoke all benefits that would have gone to families who 
cannot find the services they need outside the home and, thus, are 
paying for those services inside the home.
  Representative Mitchell came to the Rules Committee to testify on 
this amendment last night, Madam Speaker. He said that his family is 
blessed enough to have the financial resources to take care of their 
special needs family member. But he talked about all the American 
families who he has met in his district--the Speaker has them in her 
district; the gentleman from Colorado has them in his district; and I 
have them in my district--who don't have the financial means and who 
don't have that sense of security.
  The Ways and Means Committee in its wisdom unanimously said let's 
provide that security to American families. The Rules Committee in an 
error

[[Page H4027]]

in judgment repealed it because six Members voted ``yes'' last night. 
That is all it took. All it took to silence an institution of 435, 
Madam Speaker, was six Members voting to include this one seemingly 
innocuous line that disadvantages families and children all across this 
Nation.
  It is another missed opportunity, Madam Speaker. We could have been 
here today celebrating the things that we do here together. We could 
have been here celebrating shared values. We could have been here today 
making a difference that your constituents have asked of you and my 
constituents have asked of me.
  From the start of this process, for the weeks in committee, and for 
the weeks since the committee has passed it, we were doing exactly 
that. In about 6 minutes of voting last night, we erased it all. It 
took weeks to build bipartisan consensus, Madam Speaker. It took 
moments to erase it all.
  We have choices in this institution, Madam Speaker. We made the wrong 
one in the Rules Committee last night.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and give us a 
chance to make a right one. But we only get so many bites at this 
apple. The trust of the American people in us as an institution and in 
us as individuals is not infinite. If we betray that trust often 
enough, it will disappear forever.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I will start where my friend from Georgia just left 
off, complaining about a tiny section in the bill that was stricken in 
the Rules Committee. He is correct, because there are individuals 
within our Caucus who don't think it is appropriate. The bill, however, 
has dozens of provisions that benefit Americans of every stripe, 
millions of people.
  I would say to my friend from Georgia, if he feels so strongly about 
it, then bring it up in a motion to recommit. It isn't the last 
statement here. If my friend wants to see how many people want to vote 
for this, then certainly bring it up there.
  Otherwise, as my friend said, this was a major step forward on 
retirement security for so many Americans. The perfect shouldn't be the 
enemy of the good because the bill, the SECURE Act, advances that.
  Secondly, I wish Representative Maloney was still in the chair, Madam 
Speaker, because she would recognize, as it applies to the Consumers 
First Act, that the purpose of having a single agency focus on 
consumers first was so important because we saw that by having certain 
activities handled by the Housing and Urban Development Department, 
others handled by the Federal Reserve, and others handled by the 
Federal Trade Commission, consumers were not being protected. Much of 
that failure to protect--shark practices in the credit card industry 
and bad practices in the mortgage industry--led to the recession that 
we faced back in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
  The purpose of having an independent agency like the CFPB was to 
avoid that and put consumers first, just as H.R. 1500 is intended to 
do.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Panetta).
  Mr. PANETTA. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Woodall for his advocacy as 
well as his oratory skills.
  As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I want to talk about the 
SECURE Act and obviously the work that we did in the Ways and Means 
Committee in regard to not only H.R. 1994 but, more particular, a 
certain part of that bipartisan legislation that helps home healthcare 
workers save for their retirement. That would include the over 375,000 
home healthcare workers in my home State of California.
  Madam Speaker, we know that home healthcare is usually less 
expensive. It is more convenient and, most times, just as effective as 
the care people receive in a hospital or in a skilled nursing facility.
  Home healthcare workers not only provide critical services for 
seniors and those with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities, but 
they also ensure that our loved ones with special needs are able to 
live their lives in a dignified manner.
  That dignity, that skill, and that care, I can tell you, is something 
that I experienced firsthand throughout my childhood when my 
grandmother suffered a debilitating stroke and had to live with us. We 
took her in realizing that the effects of her stroke were permanent. 
That is when my family decided to ensure that she had appropriate home 
healthcare, not just the family but with full-time home healthcare 
workers.

  With both my parents working full-time, we were forced--but, yes, we 
were also fortunate--to hire home healthcare workers, people who 
actually came into our home, took care of my grandmother, and allowed 
her to live a life with dignity and with the care necessary to enjoy 
the latter years of her life.
  However, and unfortunately, right now under the current Federal 
Internal Revenue Code, home healthcare providers like those who cared 
for my grandmother are not able to participate in a retirement plan or 
save in an IRA. If you are a home healthcare worker in California who 
works in and helps out families, then you would be ineligible to 
participate in the CalSavers retirement program due to the current 
Federal law.
  That is why this bill is so important, because it would allow home 
healthcare workers to contribute to a defined contribution plan or IRA, 
giving home healthcare workers the ability to save and prepare for 
their own retirement.
  These healthcare workers give our family members dignity. This is the 
least that we can do for home healthcare workers so that they can 
retire with dignity.
  That is what this bill does. That is one of the reasons why, as a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, I did vote for this bill. It is 
also why I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, you heard the earnestness with which Mr. Panetta just 
described the committee's work. You can go through every line of the 
committee's work, and you are going to find a story similar to the one 
that Mr. Panetta has told about his family that applies to hundreds of 
thousands of families across the country.
  That is what this work product was. That is what the committee spent 
weeks and weeks putting together. That is, candidly, what my 
constituents think we do up here every day: find problems, find 
partners, craft solutions, and bring them to the floor.
  My friend from Colorado said that we shouldn't let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good, and I think he is exactly right. I haven't voted on 
the perfect bill since I have been here, Madam Speaker. You may have 
had that opportunity; I have not. I vote on bills that move the ball in 
the right direction. Even had I been king for a day, I couldn't have 
done it better.
  But the flip side of ``don't let the perfect be the enemy of the 
good'' is that this bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee 
unanimously. It was perfect if bipartisanship was your goal. It is now 
good legislation. But with this change, it is perfectly partisan.
  I would advise my colleagues that we spent a lot of time when we were 
in control--and I had the pleasure of leading the rule, as my friend 
from Colorado does today--protecting our Members from tough votes. You 
may not know, Madam Speaker, but the way the Rules Committee works, we 
could have offered waivers. If you wanted to strike protections for 
homeschooling families, if you wanted to strike protections from 
families who need to buy more than what they can find in their public 
school system for their special needs child, you could have brought an 
amendment to the floor of this House and said: I don't like those 
protections for those families. I want to strike them.
  But then you would have had to have stood up and said that whatever 
your ax was that you were grinding that day took priority over those 
families. No Member in this institution wants to do that, which is why 
it comes to the Rules Committee as a seemingly innocuous line in a 
committee report and why it only takes six members to vote ``yes'' on 
it up there to make it a part of the underlying bill. It pretends that 
the committee voted on it when, in fact, they did not.

[[Page H4028]]

  If we want to vote on these issues, then let's vote on these issues. 
But I will just tell my friends here in their fifth month of leadership 
that they will begin to rue the day that they told their new Members 
they could come to Capitol Hill, be a United States Congressperson, and 
not have to take tough votes.
  We began to rue that day when we started down that road, and you only 
get one chance to start again.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Responding to my good friend from Georgia, we are going to have a 
chance to vote on this in the rule, and we will see whether or not a 
majority is in favor of the changes that were made as part of this rule 
package.
  I would say to my friend, as part of the changes, we are adding Gold 
Star families and other children to this entire SECURE Act package to 
benefit them because in the race to give a $2 trillion tax cut to the 
richest Americans, the Republican Party forgot about a lot of families 
and a lot of children. That is being corrected in this bill and in this 
amendment.
  I urge my friend to take another look at it because this rule does 
benefit Americans all across the board and all income levels.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support for the 
rule and for the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement 
Act.
  This is an important retirement savings measure that has the support 
of a wide range of stakeholders, from the United States Chamber of 
Commerce to the Girl Scouts. What a credit to the committee for taking 
up this important legislation for the people.
  I want to highlight section 105, a provision that the committee 
included to offer a tax incentive to small businesses for setting up 
automatic enrollment for their employees' retirement plans.

  Madam Speaker, while half of private-sector employees have access to 
a retirement plan through their employer, it is estimated that just 15 
percent of small businesses offer a retirement plan. Yet small 
businesses employ approximately half of the Nation's private-sector 
workforce.
  Ensuring that small business employees have retirement options just 
like those who work for larger companies will increase small 
businesses' competitiveness at a time when the job market is 
tightening, and it will position these employees for a secure 
retirement.
  Establishing automatic enrollment in retirement plans is critical. 
Participation rates in defined contribution plans like a 401(k) are 
above 90 percent among new hires when automatic enrollment is the 
default. Moreover, 80 percent of participants increase their 
contributions over time. Alternatively, when employers do not offer 
automatic enrollment, new hire participation is below 50 percent.
  Section 105 is based upon a bill that Mr. Kelly and I introduced, the 
Small Employer Retirement Savings Auto-Enrollment Credit Act. It would 
provide small businesses--those with up to 100 employees--a $500 tax 
credit to defray the start-up cost of offering automatic enrollment. 
The tax credit would also be available to small businesses that convert 
their existing employee retirement program from an opt-in to auto-
enrollment.
  I was pleased to work with the chairman and his staff as well as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania on this issue. I urge adoption of the 
resolution and the SECURE Act.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to associate myself with everything my friend 
from Massachusetts just said. Every line of this bill, as crafted by 
the Ways and Means Committee, was designed to make a difference in a 
family's life, a difference that every single one of us can be proud 
of, and no one has a single bit of concern about that language.
  The concern is that, instead of being down here celebrating this 
bipartisan product, in the dark of night it was converted.
  My friend from Colorado is absolutely right. Not only was the home-
schooling provision stripped out; a provision for Gold Star families 
was put in.
  Now, I will just tell you, if you have any concerns, Madam Speaker, 
let me speak on behalf of the Republican Conference. If you want to 
stand up for Gold Star families, I have got Members who want to stand 
with you. I don't have some; I have them all.
  To be fair, that has nothing to do with being a Republican. If I go 
to the Democratic side of the aisle and look for folks to stand with 
Gold Star families, I won't find one; I will find them all.
  That is yet another thing that unites us, and kudos to Richard Neal, 
as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for taking an opportunity 
to make the bill better in that way.
  I happen to have his manager's amendment here, Madam Speaker. This is 
the language that was taken up by the Rules Committee last night and, 
again, stuck in because only six people voted ``yes.'' And page after 
page is dealing with those Gold Star families and trying to right that 
clerical error in drafting.
  It is in the middle of page 3, with looks like seven words: ``In 
section 302, strike subsections (b) and (d).'' You might not know what 
section 302 is and what sections (b) and (d) are, Madam Speaker. I will 
read some of that to you, again, from the Democratic chairman's 
committee report, from the unanimous legislation that was passed.
  The provision allows tax-free treatment to apply to distributions 
made for certain additional qualifying expenses on behalf of designated 
beneficiaries attending elementary and secondary schools.
  This is the offensive language that my friend referenced that some 
Members of his caucus had problems with that needed to be taken out. 
Here it comes. And I don't mean to offend you by reading these words, 
Madam Speaker, but I am just going to read them directly because I feel 
the burden to do it.
  In addition to tuition, tax-free treatment would apply to a 
distribution made for expenses for fees, tutoring, special-needs 
services, books, supplies, and other equipment incurred in connection 
with the attendance of elementary school.
  I am aghast. I am aghast that that is what the Ways and Means 
Committee decided to do. I am just going to tell you again, Madam 
Speaker.
  The committee, in its wisdom, unanimously decided that we should 
speak up for families who have problems with expenses for fees, 
academic tutoring, special-needs services, books, supplies, and other 
equipment incurred in connection with their child's attendance in 
elementary school.
  That is what this big to-do was about today. If you want to have a 
vote on the floor of the House that says, ``I don't want children in 
elementary school to have any help,'' we can have that vote. I think it 
would lose, and so do my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  That is why we are not going to have that vote. We are going to sneak 
it in, in the rule, and never be able to speak on it.
  I appreciate my friend raising the Gold Star issue because that is 
yet another area of agreement, like the issue my friend from 
Massachusetts spoke about, like the issue my friend from California 
spoke about.
  Madam Speaker, when you are in the majority in this Chamber, it is 
easy to get legislation passed. You control the Rules Committee. You 
control the votes on the board. You get to jam everything through.
  I know. I spent 8 years in the majority, and that is the way every 
day is when you are in the majority.
  But you don't have to jam everything through. Occasionally--just 
occasionally--there are bills, like this bill from the Ways and Means 
Committee, where every single line is dedicated to solving problems, 
problems that affect your district and problems that affect my 
district.
  Occasionally--just occasionally--we find Members on both sides of the 
aisle sitting down, rolling up their sleeves, looking for solutions 
instead of talking

[[Page H4029]]

points. And, when that happens, you produce good legislation like the 
bill Chairman Neal brought before us today.
  We could have been down here celebrating that legislation, Madam 
Speaker. Instead, we are talking about the efforts to unwind it. And, 
for the life of me, I just don't understand why that is the path we 
have chosen.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, just in response to my friend, we have two bills that 
are encompassed in this rule: H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, and 
H.R. 1994, the SECURE Act.
  The gentleman is focusing on one sentence out of dozens of provisions 
that benefit millions of Americans to complain about this rule and what 
was done.
  Well, people get to vote on this rule. It isn't just 6 people or 10 
people or 13 people. There will be 435 of us voting on whether we 
approve the rule or not. There are other opportunities to take care of 
the one sentence, if my friend is so aghast that it might be stricken 
in favor of dozens of other provisions, including the Gold Star family 
and children across America.
  So, I appreciate the rhetorical abilities of my good friend from 
Georgia, but, quite frankly, he is missing the forest for the trees 
through all of this.
  Secondly, H.R. 1500 is another key piece of legislation that is 
encompassed in this rule to really get consumers first again, as 
opposed to the financial services industry being first, which appears 
to be the effort of the Trump administration.
  Madam Speaker, I would inquire of my friend from Georgia if he has 
any other speakers. If not, I suggest we close.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I don't have any speakers remaining. I 
have a powerful previous question vote that I would like to describe, 
and I am prepared to do that at this time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We can't always get exercised about every single line in every single 
bill. We would never get anything done.
  We have an amendment process so that, if you get exercised about a 
particular line in a particular bill, you can bring your amendment to 
the floor and we vote on it.
  We are going to get into the appropriations process soon. When we 
spend money, it turns out to be one of those issues that people feel 
strongly about. We are going to entertain hundreds of amendments--
Republican amendments, Democratic amendments.
  Some Republican amendments are going to pass; some are going to fail. 
Some Democrat amendments are going to pass; some are going to fail.
  But we are going to work the will of the body, and we are going to do 
the best we can to get to a final package that we move across the 
street to the Senate.
  My frustration in this moment, Madam Speaker, isn't that we have the 
inability of moving things forward and discussing ideas. We do have the 
ability to do that, and we did that well in the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  My frustration is that, when people don't like the way the committee 
unanimously, in a bipartisan way, did something because they have 
bipartisan concerns--and, to be clear, the concerns about this language 
are not Republican concerns. This language was not stricken because 
Republicans objected. This language was not stricken to satisfy any 
bipartisan concern of any kind.
  This was purely a partisan exercise. And if you want to have a 
partisan exercise, I know 435 Members who are here all day, who will 
come down here to the House floor and vote on it, and we can do that.
  So I want to offer that opportunity, Madam Speaker. For folks who 
think this is about public policy, as it was when the committee 
considered it in a bipartisan way, I want to offer an amendment to this 
bill.
  If we defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, I will offer an 
amendment that strikes this offending section. What that means in 
layman's terms is the bill would contain the Gold Star family language 
that is very important to every Member of this Chamber. It would 
contain the pension language that is very important to every Member of 
this Chamber.
  It would contain every line designed in a bipartisan fashion by the 
Ways and Means Committee to make a difference in families' lives, but 
it would strike the majority's effort, with only six votes on the Rules 
Committee, to eliminate protections for home-schooling families 
altogether.
  Vote against the previous question, defeat the previous question, and 
we can restore the bipartisan consensus language the Ways and Means 
Committee crafted, and we will add the Gold Star family language that 
my friend from Colorado and I agree on.
  I don't serve in the Ways and Means Committee, Madam Speaker. They 
have got big ideas they have to work on over there. I don't serve on 
the Financial Services Committee. They have got big ideas they have to 
work on over there.
  I serve in the Rules Committee. My job is to get bills to the House 
floor and to make sure that voices are heard on perfecting that 
language.
  If we defeat the previous question, we can achieve exactly the 
partisan goal that the majority wants, but we can achieve it by 
actually having a vote of the House on that goal.
  I think the American people are tired of things being done in secret. 
I think they are tired of things being done without the full story 
being told.
  I talk to my friends on the other side of the aisle regularly, daily, 
hourly, Madam Speaker. I know the hunger from your side of the aisle to 
deliver on behalf of the American people. I know that hunger. I know 
the hunger on your side of the aisle to roll up sleeves and do the hard 
things. Because the easy things somebody else has already taken care 
of. All that is left for you and me are the hard things.
  Going to the well of partisanship, pulling your sharp stick out of 
your quiver and poking the other team, those aren't the hard things. 
Those are the easy things. And, candidly, those aren't the surprising 
things. They have become all too commonplace.
  I don't get to run this institution, but I do get a vote in it. I see 
opportunities for partnership, not because everybody wants it, but 
because it has to happen. Republican President, Republican Senate, 
Democratic House: The only way we succeed, Madam Speaker, is to succeed 
together. That is the only pathway forward.
  If anybody in this Chamber ran for their seat because they wanted to 
stand up here and talk about it for 2 years, we have got a great 
pathway for you. But if you ran for this seat because you actually 
wanted to get it done, these bills today aren't doing it.
  The Senate won't consider them. The President is not going to sign 
them. But there are ideas in these bills, Madam Speaker, as expressed 
unanimously by the Ways and Means Committee, that America is hungry for 
and you and I can deliver.
  Let's exceed expectations today. Defeat the previous question, and 
let's restore this bill to the bipartisan compromise that the Ways and 
Means Committee created.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Trahan for 
joining us today to speak on this rule, the Consumers First Act, and 
the SECURE Act.
  And, just briefly, with respect to the Consumers First Act, there are 
dozens and dozens of consumer, civil rights, and labor organizations 
supporting the Consumers First Act and how we are approaching it 
pursuant to this rule: Americans for Financial Reform, the Center for 
Responsible Lending, the Communication Workers of America, the Consumer 
Federation of America, and the NAACP, just to mention a few, with 
respect to the Consumers First Act.
  With respect to the SECURE Act: AARP, SEIU, the Church Alliance, the 
Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, the National Association of Women Business 
Owners.
  And today is the 100th anniversary of a woman's right to vote, so 
here we have got the National Association of Women Business Owners, as 
well as the

[[Page H4030]]

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, TIAA-CREF, and the Air Line 
Pilots Association.
  So we have consumer groups, insurance groups, and business groups 
supporting the SECURE Act so that millions more Americans can feel 
secure in their retirement, something that so many people feel insecure 
about today.
  The bill has dozens and dozens of provisions. The amendment that is 
in the nature of the manager's amendment by Mr. Neal includes 
additional children, Gold Star families, a lot of people who were left 
out by the giant tax cut that the Republicans passed a year and a half 
ago to benefit the wealthiest Americans.
  These two bills are important steps forward for the constituents that 
you represent, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman from Georgia 
represents, and the people I represent.
  The Consumers First Act will realign the Consumer Bureau's focus as a 
truly independent voice protecting consumers first. We have seen what 
the bureau can accomplish in the millions of consumers who were helped 
under Director Cordray, and our constituents need the bureau to 
continue to focus on them.

                              {time}  1330

  The SECURE Act is an important bipartisan package which addresses 
retirement security and makes an important technical change to the GOP 
tax bill for Gold Star families, among others. This package was 
developed by both sides of the aisle and with many stakeholders.
  While the other side of the aisle may be upset over one provision out 
of dozens and dozens of provisions, I hope they can recognize the 
effort that went into this package to bring both sides together and the 
millions of Americans who are benefited by this legislation.
  These are both commonsense bills, and I look forward to their 
passage.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the 
previous question.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Judy Chu of California). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I kind of wanted to object, but I 
didn't.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the 
previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 389

       In section 2, after ``accompanying this resolution'' insert 
     ``and the amendment specified in section 9 of this 
     resolution''.
       At the end, add the following new section:
       Sec. 9. The amendment referred to in section 2 of this 
     resolution is as follows:
       In the amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, strike ``In 
     section 302, strike subsections (b) and (d).''.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________