Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, since the courts have weighed in, Democrats have been attempting to use the securities laws to mandate the disclosure of companies' political spending activities in order to name and shame companies from engaging in such free speech activity.

Time and time again, when the issue of political disclosure has come up as a shareholder proposal at every company's annual proxy meeting where it has been proposed, it has been shot down. It has been defeated.

In fact, according to Proxy Monitor, the average percentage vote in favor of a political disclosure shareholder proposal in 2016 was just 23 percent support. Shareholders have repeatedly weighed in against requiring disclosure of this information and do not believe it is important in making their own investment decisions regarding that company.

Our securities laws and disclosure requirements have always centered on the concept of materiality, as determined by the Supreme Court, whether an omitted fact is material by looking at ``whether there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote.''

In fact, under the Obama administration, former SEC Chair Mary Jo White declined to advance a political disclosure rule, stating it was ``not one of the priorities we are advancing.''

Additionally, former Chair White was vocal about ensuring that disclosures were not causing informational overload for investors. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, we heard repeated-- repeated--testimony on that fact.

This provision to prevent the SEC from issuing a political disclosure rule has continually been part of appropriations packages that have been signed into law by Presidents of both parties and should continue to stay as part of this package.

Now, earlier you heard that the mission of the SEC is to provide transparency. Let me read exactly what the mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission is:

``The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.''

This simply does not fit into that tripartite mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Now, with that being said, nothing--and let me repeat that, nothing-- prevents companies from voluntarily reporting this information if they believe that it is important for them to make such disclosures or for their shareholders to also vote that way.

So all companies, private and public, should remain free to do just that: make that decision as they decide is the best course for that particular company.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I will repeat a couple of things very briefly.

All of these proxy proposals have garnered 23 percent, average, support, so there is not widespread support among the investors.

And again, I will repeat that three-pronged mission that the Securities and Exchange Commission has: ``protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.'' This particular effort does none of those things, advances none of those things, and that is why I oppose the amendment.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source