Providing for Consideration of H.R. Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act; Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Disapproving Department of Labor Rule Related to Definition of the Term ``fiduciary''; and Providing for Proceedings During the Period From May Through May 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 706 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 706

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4901) to reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 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 Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term ``Fiduciary''. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 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 Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from May 2, 2016, through May 9, 2016-- (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. The Committee on Armed Services may, at any time before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4, 2016, file a report to accompany H.R. 4909.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 706 provides a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act, as it is the product of careful bipartisan and bicameral negotiations.

It also provides a closed rule for the consideration of H.J. Res. 88, disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term ``fiduciary,'' which is traditional for Congressional Review Act resolutions.

The underlying bill and resolution we will consider today are important steps forward on two issues of great concern to Americans: education and retirement savings.

H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act, also known as the SOAR Reauthorization Act, would continue important funding provided to help young students here in Washington, D.C., reach their full potential.

This legislation would provide $60 million annually for 5 years, split equally among the District's public schools, charter schools, and the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, which enables low-income students to attend a private school that would otherwise be out of their reach.

I have great confidence that the SOAR Reauthorization Act is a positive step for students in the District of Columbia and that, through its example, it will provide a model for success that could be adopted by States across the country.

With the adoption of this rule, the House will also provide for the consideration of H.J. Res. 88, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule, a rule that will otherwise soon take effect and limit the ability of Americans to receive adequate advice on how to allocate their retirement savings.

If enacted, this resolution will prevent the red tape and other burdensome mandates that threaten to cut off access to trusted financial advisers and may result in lower savings rates and returns on investment.

As Americans are clamoring for more assistance with retirement savings and financial decisions, we must ensure that they are encouraged to continue saving and are able to receive helpful guidance. Stopping the harmful fiduciary rule is an important step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this rule and both the underlying bill and resolution. I ask my colleagues for their support.

The Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act is a program that makes students the priority.

First authorized in 2004, this program has provided significant, life-changing benefits to students for over a decade. It is no secret that many students in the District of Columbia have not received the education they deserve.

Fourth graders in the District scored below all 50 States in average math and reading scores in 2013, and eighth graders had the lowest average math and reading scores in the country.

The SOAR Reauthorization Act continues a three-sector strategy to improve education in the District of Columbia.

First, it provides additional resources to the public school system for its use in improving student achievement.

An equal amount is provided to the innovative charter schools that are opening across the District, which provide a valuable alternative for students who seek a different experience.

Finally, through the Opportunity Scholarship Program, students receive potentially life-changing scholarships to attend private schools that offer opportunities that are rarely seen by low-income students.

We often speak of the States as laboratories of democracy. But, in this instance, it is the District of Columbia that is providing an instructive example of the value of trying different approaches, of studying them, and then of replicating the solutions that work, not the solutions that benefit entrenched interests.

That is why I am so pleased to see that this legislation includes important reforms to the program to ensure it performs at the highest standards and is fully assessed for its effectiveness. It is my hope that these assessment standards will be applied to many other programs at the Department of Education and across the Federal Government.

Parents have also expressed a higher satisfaction rate with their children's schools and have reported that they believe those schools are safer for their children. Both parents and the community support the Opportunity Scholarship Program, with 74 percent supporting a continuation of the program.

It is not hard to understand why that program has that level of support when you consider that 90 percent of students who are participating in the program graduate compared to only 64 percent of students in the schools they left behind.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. Ninety percent of students who are participating in the program graduate compared to only 64 percent of students in the schools they left behind.

How could our colleagues possibly oppose this opportunity for students in the District of Columbia? And that 90 percent graduation rate is even better than the national rate of 82 percent.

It is important to recognize that this legislation has support from across the aisle at the local level. In March 2016, a majority of the D.C. Council and Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in a letter that ``these funds are critical to the gains that the District's public education system has seen in recent years.''

I commend the SOAR Reauthorization Act to my colleagues for their support.

This is not the first time Congress and the public have debated a fiduciary rule conceived by the Department of Labor.

The Department first proposed a rule in 2010, but was later forced to withdraw it due to significant bipartisan opposition. A wide array of stakeholders, both those saving for retirement and those providing assistance to savers, raised legitimate concerns that the Department would be limiting available advice and raising costs.

Unfortunately, the Department chose to ignore the lessons of that debacle and embarked again in 2015 on a misguided effort to create a new fiduciary rule.

Mr. Speaker, it may be helpful to explain exactly why the Department is promulgating rules governing retirement advice whatsoever.

Under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, also known as ERISA, Federal law establishes ground rules for defined contribution pension plans, which may be 401(k)s, IRAs, or other tax-preferred savings vehicles.

Anyone who exercises discretionary authority over those plans or provides investment advice for a fee to those plans is considered a fiduciary and triggers certain regulatory restrictions that govern their actions. Since 1975, the Department of Labor has used a five-part test to determine when a provider of investment advice is a fiduciary.

As I mentioned earlier, the Obama administration first proposed in 2010 and then in 2015 to expand significantly the definition of fiduciary, which would subject a significant number of new individuals and firms to fiduciary status and have a chilling effect on the willingness of them to provide advice whatsoever to those saving for retirement.

On April 6, the Department finalized its regulation, which will significantly impact the ability of Americans to receive advice on how to save for retirement and make it more difficult for businesses, in particular small businesses, to establish retirement plans.

At a time when Americans want to save significantly more for retirement, the Department of Labor wants to make it cost prohibitive to offer advice or services to low- and middle-income Americans by increasing compliance costs and the risk of litigation.

Many of the Department's compliance requirements will be counterproductive, as those saving for retirement will be forced to review and sign a number of government-mandated documents instead of focusing on identifying the best options for their retirement savings.

There are also issues related to specific savings vehicles for retirement, such as variable and fixed-indexed annuities, which must comply with the new requirements.

There are also potential class action lawsuits under state law that could prevent good actors in the industry from taking clients and impose an additional cost on savers.

Beyond its impact on individuals saving for retirement and those assisting them, the fiduciary rule will have a negative impact on the businesses that attempt to offer pension plans that benefit their employees.

The rule holds large and small businesses to different standards, with negative implications for those most in need of assistance, which are small businesses with less than $50 million in assets in their retirement plan. As with so many other provisions of the fiduciary rule, that will raise costs and reduce the choices available to small businesses.

These concerns have been echoed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Even the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy submitted a comment letter stating that ``The proposed rule would increase the costs and burdens associated with serving smaller plans . . . and could limit financial advisers' ability to offer savings and investment advice to clients.''

In order to stop the Department of Labor's misguided efforts, Representatives Roe, Boustany, and Wagner introduced this Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the fiduciary regulation.

The Congressional Review Act provides a special process for consideration of joint resolutions disapproving of a regulation. Should a resolution, such as the one we will consider today, be enacted into law, it will prevent the rule from taking effect or being reissued.

Clearly, if the fiduciary rule comes into effect, millions of Americans and the businesses employing them will be provided with fewer investment opportunities and higher costs, limiting their return on investments and the amount they are one day able to retire with.

That is why I cosponsored H.J. Res. 88 to disapprove of this harmful rule and enable Americans to continue working with the adviser of their choice and save for retirement in a prudent and cost-effective way.

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to say a few additional things on the benefit of the SOAR Reauthorization Act.

When the Opportunity Scholarship Program, OSP, was first designed, D.C. public school students had the lowest test scores in the Nation. D.C. schools have improved since then, but D.C. public school students continue to test well below national averages. D.C. OSP students are seeing improved achievement against non-OSP students in reading and in graduation rates.

In addition, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program does not take away money from the D.C. public and charter schools nor does it reallocate D.C. education money. In fact, H.R. 4901 directs additional Federal resources to the D.C. education system that would not otherwise be available if not for the OSP.

Finally, there are thousands of families on charter school waiting lists who aren't able to access the schools their children need. OSP allows income-eligible families to get into high-quality district or charter schools who would not otherwise have access to education alternatives.

We are considering crucial legislation today impacting two important issues, ensuring Americans are able to save for retirement and enabling the education of our next generation.

As any parent knows, the education of our children is one of our highest priorities. For far too long, children in Washington, D.C., have not received the education they deserve, and have suffered from unacceptable achievement levels and graduation rates.

The SOAR Reauthorization Act, which this rule provides for consideration of, continues a successful three- sector approach to improving the lives and educational outcomes of low- income students in the District.

It provides $60 million in funding for students, split equally among D.C.'s public schools, charter schools, and scholarships for students to attend private schools that would otherwise be out of reach.

Students receiving private school educations have demonstrated higher test scores and significantly higher graduation rates, showcasing the importance of continuing students' access to these institutions.

Students participating in the Opportunity Scholarship Program reauthorized in this legislation have graduated at a rate of 90 percent, besting both other schools in D.C. where only 64 percent of students graduate and the national graduation rate of 82 percent.

These programs are an important example of the need for innovation and experimentation in how to best reform our education system to benefit students, not entrenched interests.

It has been an honor for me personally to witness some of the students who benefited from the programs included in the SOAR Reauthorization Act. After seeing the hope for the future those students have in their eyes, I cannot fathom preventing other students from receiving their own second chances.

It has also been my pleasure over the past several decades to join my husband in working with a number of financial advisers on how best to save for retirement and our other financial goals. Those advisers have always acted in the best interest of our family and provided useful advice that has enabled us to meet our goals.

Unfortunately, I believe that not everyone in Washington believes financial advisers are well-intentioned and skilled. It is my fear that, as private sector actors, not government employees, they are suspected by some of being motivated by greed and taking any opportunity available to take their clients' money for their own.

That is a disturbing viewpoint that has no place in reality. These advisers work with their friends and neighbors in their home communities. The larger companies are brands that have been well established for decades and are subject to significant regulation and public scrutiny from customers and the marketplace. If there were widespread fleecing of those saving for retirement, we would all rightly hear about it.

The reality is that the vast majority of financial advisers, large and small, have been and will continue to act in their clients' best interests. There are laws and regulations in place to ensure bad actors are identified and punished, and I support those enforcement efforts wholeheartedly.

What I and other Members cannot support is another effort by the Department of Labor to vilify an industry with real consequences for the ability of Americans to save affordably for retirement. We must strengthen our focus on stopping and punishing bad actors instead of increasing rules and regulations that hinder the countless good actors in this industry.

We have a retirement savings crisis in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, and it is vital that every American has access to high-quality advice and an array of financial products available at a low cost.

We can continue to trust Americans to make the right choice. The fiduciary rule takes that right away, and therefore, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to vote on H.J. Res. 88, disapproving the fiduciary rule.

Mr. Speaker, I believe both the underlying bill and resolution are necessary steps on issues of great import to our Nation, and I commend them and this rule, providing for their consideration, to all of my colleagues for their support.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 706 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, 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. 5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016 to respond to Zika virus. 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 shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5044. ____ The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source