[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.

                          ____________________