[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 53 (Thursday, March 23, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1383-H1386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO ``PRUDENCE AND LOYALTY IN SELECTING
PLAN INVESTMENTS AND EXERCISING SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS''--VETO MESSAGE FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 118-18)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution
199, the unfinished business is the further consideration of the veto
message of the President on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 30)
providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of
[[Page H1384]]
title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of
Labor relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments
and Exercising Shareholder Rights''.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
(For veto message, see proceedings of the House of March 21, 2023, at
page H1299.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on the veto message on H.J. Res. 30.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of overriding President
Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 30, a Congressional Review Act resolution
nullifying the Biden administration's attempt to politicize the
retirement savings of Americans.
This is deja vu for the American people. With this veto, the
President once again insists on undermining the financial security of
the very people who elected him.
Republicans will stand with American workers and retirees in
protecting their savings.
ESG investing puts the future of millions of Americans in jeopardy
when they are already facing economic hardships and inflation brought
on by this administration's reckless spending.
The President says H.J. Res. 30 would make it, ``. . . illegal to
consider risk factors . . .'' but that statement is blatantly false and
misleading.
The Trump rule, which H.J. Res. 30 would reinstate explicitly states,
``Nothing in the final rule is intended to or does prevent a fiduciary
from appropriately considering any material risk with respect to an
investment.''
Last year, the Department of Labor, DOL, published a rule encouraging
retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG factors when making
investment decisions. Biden protected this rule with his veto.
Now, thanks to Democrats, workers can be placed into ESG investment
vehicles by default. If a fiduciary finds that two investments are
equal, the fiduciary is allowed to use collateral ESG factors to break
the tie without justifying or documenting that decision.
This is especially concerning since ESG investments often
underperform and are riskier than other investment strategies.
The left is using ESG investment criteria as a political tool to
cudgel companies into accepting leftist policies. If we do not override
this veto, the left will use ESG investing to push noncompliant
companies out of the marketplace.
Congress debated and it came to the bipartisan conclusion to overturn
the Biden rule. Now the administration persists through executive fiat.
Americans invest to secure their future, not to fund the Green New
Deal or leftist pet projects. That is why I supported the resolution to
nullify the Biden administration's destructive rule.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to quit playing petty politics
and vote in accordance with the best interests of the American people.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House Republican
majority's effort to override President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 30.
This resolution sought to nullify a popular and sensible rule that
enabled retirement plan managers to make fully informed investment
decisions.
I commend the President for his veto. Workers should be able to
invest their retirement savings in a way that reflects their values,
such as combating climate change, without sacrificing investment
returns.
That is why the Biden-Harris administration issued a rule to clarify
that retirement plan managers may consider the economic effects of
climate change and other environmental, social, and governance factors,
or ESG factors, when they make investment decisions for participants in
retirement plans.
Simply put, this rule is not an ESG mandate. It just allows
participants to make those decisions.
Additionally, the rule does not change the fiduciary standard to
which the professionals who make the investment decisions for
retirement plans are bound. They must still prioritize the interests of
retirement plan participants and cannot sacrifice investment returns to
pursue ESG goals.
Today's debate is not a referendum on the administration's rule or
even ESG in general. We had that debate last month.
{time} 1730
The debate is about two things. First, it is about arithmetic.
As my colleagues know, overriding the President's veto requires
support of two-thirds, or 290 Members of the House. H.J. Res. 30 passed
the House with 216 votes, nearly all of which came from the Republican
Caucus. Anyone who can count knows that the Republican majority will
not have the votes to override the President's veto; and everyone
should be asking why are we going through the motions.
Second, the debate is a window into the Republican majority's agenda.
Unfortunately, they would rather spend precious time on the floor on a
doomed effort instead of advancing legislation that would help put
people over politics.
While we are considering the veto override, we could have been
considering ensuring women received equal pay for equal work; ending
workplace discrimination; strengthening a worker's ability to join a
union and negotiate for better working conditions; help people balance
work and family by providing paid sick leave and family and medical
leave; or raising the minimum wage.
House Democrats and the Biden administration are focused on these
priorities and remain committed to lowering costs for our constituents,
creating better-paying jobs, and making our communities safer.
Madam Speaker, before I reserve the balance of my time, I will ask
unanimous consent to enter into the Record President Biden's veto
message of H.J. Res. 30. It says, in part: ``There is extensive
evidence showing that environmental, social, and governance factors can
have a material impact on markets, industries, and businesses. But the
Republican-led resolution would force retirement managers to ignore
these relevant risk factors, disregarding the principles of free
markets and jeopardizing the life savings of working families and
retirees. In fact, this resolution would prevent retirement plan
fiduciaries from taking into account factors, such as the physical
risks of climate change and poor corporate governance, that could
affect investment returns.''
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the complete veto message
be entered into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
[March 20, 2023]
Message to the House of Representatives--President's Veto of H.J. Res.
30
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.J. Res. 30, a
resolution that would disapprove of the Department of Labor's final
rule titled ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and
Exercising Shareholder Rights.''
The Department of Labor's final rule protects the hard-earned life
savings and pensions of tens of millions of workers and retirees across
the country. It allows retirement plan fiduciaries to make fully
informed investment decisions by considering all relevant factors that
might impact a prospective investment, while ensuring
[[Page H1385]]
that investment decisions made by retirement plan fiduciaries maximize
financial returns for retirees.
There is extensive evidence showing that environmental, social, and
governance factors can have a material impact on markets, industries,
and businesses. But the Republican-led resolution would force
retirement managers to ignore these relevant risk factors, disregarding
the principles of free markets and jeopardizing the life savings of
working families and retirees. In fact, this resolution would prevent
retirement plan fiduciaries from taking into account factors, such as
the physical risks of climate change and poor corporate governance,
that could affect investment returns.
Retirement plan fiduciaries should be able to consider any factor
that maximizes financial returns for retirees across the country. That
is not controversial--that is common sense.
Therefore, I am vetoing this resolution.
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
The White House, March 20, 2023.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from
Virginia is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
the time.
Today, we have heard a lot about ESG and other topics, but nobody
made a convincing case that there are the votes to override the
President's veto, and that is because a convincing case cannot be made.
The Republican majority may think this futile attempt to override the
President's veto is an appropriate use of the House's time and
resources, but we disagree.
The first quarter of this year is nearly over, and there is so much
the Republican majority has failed do to improve the lives of
Americans.
In contrast, under Democratic leadership during the last Congress,
the House made significant progress to deliver for the American people.
We took action to create millions of jobs, reduce unemployment to near-
record lows, to save workers' pensions, to deliver historic funding for
education, to improve child nutrition, and to bring the number of
uninsured Americans down to the lowest level ever.
By that standard, this current majority has a long way to go.
However, at the very least, we should agree that we can't afford to
waste time on futile efforts that we know won't go anywhere.
I urge my colleagues to quickly join me in rejecting the veto
override, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I obviously disagree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle
that a compelling argument to override the veto has not been made. I
believe that we have offered a compelling argument.
I believe there are two points of view on what my colleague said
about the successes of what our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have done for the last 2 years.
We have the highest debt that we have ever had in this country. We
are staggering under an inflation rate that is historic, and so we
obviously don't think what we have inherited from the last 2 years of
total Democratic dominance in this country is positive.
I think we can make a small attempt to make some changes here by
overriding the President's veto. I urge even my Democratic colleagues
to vote ``yes'' to protect workers and retirees. Override the
President's veto.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of President Biden's
veto rejecting legislation to overturn a Labor Department rule related
to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)--based investing
strategies.
On December 1, 2022, the Department of Labor issued a final rule on
``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising
Shareholder Rights.'' This rule clarifies that retirement plan
fiduciaries may consider climate change and other Environmental,
Social, and Governance (ESG) factors in selecting retirement
investments and exercising shareholder rights, when those factors are
relevant to the risk and return analysis.
The bill Republicans passed would have rejected that rule, instead
mandating that retirement plan managers ignore this type of risk--
whether it be a company's poor corporate management, human rights
violations, carbon emissions, or any of the other factors that fall
under the ESG framework.
When retirement plan managers are unable to fully explain all of the
risks in a portfolio, those risks jeopardize the hard-earned retirement
dollars of tens of millions hardworking Americans. ESG factors should
be allowed to be taken into account in one's investment and retirement
strategies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s
just-released report * offers a catastrophic outlook if nations like
the U.S. do not take urgent action to fight the climate crisis. Clearly
superstorms, severe flooding, and sea-level rise, for example, elevate
risks. ESG strategies are one tool to help individuals take an action
of their own in pursuit of a future on a livable planet.
Should Minnesotans want to divest from fossil fuel interests, they
should be allowed to do so. Their retirement plan managers should have
the freedom to make fully-informed investment decisions--whether
related to ESG or not.
Republicans' nonsensical attempt to frame ESG investments as ``woke
capitalism'' is a waste of this governing body's efforts and would put
Americans' futures at risk. Vetoing this bill is just common sense.
President Biden has made clear that Democrats believe we must protect
hardworking Americans' life savings and retirement.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the
President to the contrary notwithstanding.
Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 200, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 149]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--200
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Correa
Courtney
Craig
[[Page H1386]]
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Blumenauer
Bucshon
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cohen
Costa
Cuellar
Jackson (IL)
Kelly (IL)
Leger Fernandez
Moskowitz
Mullin
Nadler
Rogers (KY)
Salazar
{time} 1803
Mrs. BEATTY, Messrs. CARSON, PAYNE, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI,
Ms. JACKSON LEE, and Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PERRY and Ms. VAN DUYNE changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the veto of the
President was sustained and the joint resolution was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The veto message and the joint resolution
are referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
____________________