tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN April 28, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
income security act, erisa was first passed in 1975, 401 k plans had not existed. oday more americans have 401 k plans and pension plans and must manage their own investments. so republicans today continue their claims this rule will make it more difficult for small businesses and low and middle-income americans to get financial advice because it will cost them more. the fact is conflicted investment advice cost americans billions of dollars a year. as the white house said, i quote, some firms have incentivized advisers to steer clients into products that have higher fees and lower returns costing american families an estimated $17 billions and it continues, again i quote, if the
president were presented with this resolution, he would veto the bill. . this isn't top-down. this is from the bottom up. listening to everybody, to everybody, and coming out with a rule that's responsive to the needs of the american people. that's really what this is about, and instead we have republicans coming forth again essentially, as i said, with their blinders on, opposing them, opposing this rule when they know that if it ever passed the senate -- and i don't think it will -- it will be vetoed by the president. i strongly urge that my colleagues vote against this resolution, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point it's my privilege to give one minute to the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, chairman ed royce of
california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, here is what we do know. we do know that the negative impact of this rule on consumers is not hypothetical, and the reason we know it is because the united kingdom has already lived through an affectually identical rule and the result in -- effectually identical rule and the result in the u.k. locked out nearly half a million of middle and low-income savers. so just last week, the head of s.e.c.'s division of economic and risk analysis, admitted that the labor department knew of the disastrous impact of what he termed the experiment in the u.k. that locked out these middle-income and low-income savers from advice. and yet it moved forward to put us on that same path. mr. speaker, we live in a country that ranks 19th in the world for retirement security.
half of americans cannot find $400 in savings if hit with an emergency. we should be doing more to encourage americans to save, and this rule obviously does exactly the opposite. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to a leader on the house education and work force committee, the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from oregon is recognized for three minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. too many families and individuals across oregon and across our country are struggling to get ahead, and i know the sacrifice that's involved in each and every dollar they set aside to contribute to their retirement. building a stable base for retirement security should be within reach for everyone, and that is why i will vote no on h.j.r. 88. consumer protection is one of
the reasons i'm standing on the house floor today. throughout my career, i've advocated for families who, despite their best efforts, have found their financial and retirement security at risk. at legal aid i helped family who were on the brink of losing everything. as a consumer protection attorney at the federal trade commission, i took on mortgage brokers who had defrauded people out of their homes and in private practice, i represented people who lost their life savings when they relied on misrepresentation by people selling securities and franchises. so i played close attention to the fiduciary rule because i know that strong consumer protection laws can keep americans financially secure and level the playing field. a thriving marketplace without deceptive practices can restore consumer confidence and grow the economy. and for too long, people saving for retirement have had few ols to know if their financial advisor was directing them to a product in their best
interest and more appropriate for their needs and goals. seeking to put the retirees first, the department of labor took great care in drafting a final rule to remove conflicts of interest and restore confidence to savers. they heard from people around the country, including consumer protection groups and leaders in the industry. they heard from people who lost their life savings because of financial advice that was not in their best interest. saving for retirement is crucial for our country's economic security, but too many americans are uncertain about how they can stretch their hard had been earned dollars to provide -- hard-earned dollars to provide for them and their families. products are complex. the department of labor sought to protect these americans from conflicted advice so they can be prepared for retirement while allowing financial advisors to continue to play an important role in this process. stakeholders from all sides of
the issue were involved in the rulemaking. the department took time, listened to them and made multiple changes to make sure this rule is workable. i applaud the department of labor for their thoughtful and thorough rulemaking process, and i urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation that seeks to block this important fiduciary rule. i thank ranking member scott for his leadership on this issue, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from oregon yields back her time. the gentleman from virginia yields or reserves his time, and the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i thank you, mr. speaker. a title does not make you honest. bernie madoff was a fiduciary, i might add. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the education and work force, colonel john kline from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. r several years now, about
seven, we have heard from americans, we heard from employers, we heard from families that the american economy, the american people, employers are under assault from a blizzard of regulations. and in the last year, as we near the closing months of this administration, the blizzard is almost a whiteout. you can hardly see, they're coming so fast. this, this is one such regulation and it's everywhere in industries across america. it's choking us. we got to stop it. please, please, let's start here today and support this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to a member who before coming to congress had a long career in the financial services industry, the
gentleman from maryland, mr. delaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we have a looming retirement crisis in this country. people are living longer, the cost of retirement is greater than it's ever been, americans haven't been able to save for retirement because wages have not gone up and across the last several decades, we've shifted the risk of retirement from institutions to individuals. in that context, the notion that we would allow perhaps upwards of 20% of hardworking americans' savings to be eroded because of conflicted investment advice is preposterous, so it is for that reason i am a strong supporter of the department of labor's fiduciary rule and stand here in opposition against any efforts to undermine it. and the notion that average americans, low-income americans, middle-class americans won't be -- receive service in the context of this new rule is also invalid. -- of the greatest expanses
expenses they have is the amount of money they invest to customers. the idea somehow they would get rid of millions and millions of customers they already invested huge amounts of money in acquiring i find not only a bad business decision but not logical in the context of the private market the way we understand it. also, the extent they would do that, i believe right now as we speak, there are entrepreneurs and investors sitting in conference rooms all over this country with white boards figuring out new business models that will deliver high-quality, fiduciary-level, nonconflicted financial advice to average americans in an efficient manner that meets the standards of this fiduciary rule. so for all these reasons, i support the rule, i stand in opposition against any efforts to undermine it. this is an important step in dealing with our looming retirement crisis, and it's the proper role of government to level the playing field and then to allow the private
market to solve the problem. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i thank you, mr. speaker. and i will point out what has happened in england. we have a playbook by which to look at when this exact same, very similar rule was implemented in england about how many investors lost advice. at this time it's my great privilege to yield two minutes to the distinguished whip, steve scalise from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from tennessee for bringing this legislation forward. and mr. speaker, what we're trying to do here is help people and encourage more savings. 401-k plans were so good at making it easy for people to save money for their retirement. frankly, we should be doing as much as we can here in washington to make it even easier, to encourage more people to save for their retirement. but here comes the department of labor and literally with
this massive document to define one word, what the term fiduciary means, is going to make it dramatically harder for americans to save money for their retirement. anybody who thinks this massive document defining the ability for people to save money is going to make it easier or make it less costly to save money doesn't understand just how many teams of lawyers will be employed to go and try to figure out what this means and what it will mean, mr. speaker, is that the cost for hardworking taxpayers to go and put more money in their retirement is going to go up dramatically. it also means -- and you want to talk about a perverse incentive -- the rule, this massive rule actually opposes even more burdens on small businesses than it does on large businesses, so the very engine of our economy, small businesses, will literally will have to face the question of whether or not they can provide 401-k services to their employees.
employees love the ability to have a 401-k. employees also move around a lot from job to job and enjoy the ability to roll over their 401-k. in this massive rule, actually makes it nearly impossible for people to roll over their 401-k. dramatically increasing the cost. why would you want to do that? so what we're trying to do here is say, go back to the drawing board. this rule makes no sense. this rule actually makes the ability for hardworking taxpayers to save money for their retirement. the exact opposite thing the federal government should be doing. i applaud my friend from tennessee for bringing this forward, and i urge adoption. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the department of labor, the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this
resolution which would block the implementation of the department of labor's conflict of interest rule. i strongly support what the department of labor is trying to do with this rule simply to ensure that financial advisors act in the best interest of the consumer. unfortunately, the rule is necessary because some financial advisors are recommending financial instruments that offer rewards or commissions to the advisor for steering the client to those particular instruments instead of recommending retirement options that are in the best interest of the customer. this is about safeguarding worker retirement savings. the white house council of economic advisors estimates that conflicts of interest cost $17 billion per year in lost savings for americans who are trying to save for retirement. this is unacceptable.
when hardworking americans seek advice on how to invest for retirement, they should not have to worry about being led to make decisions that are not in their best interest. and by establishing this fiduciary duty, they would require advisors to act in the interest of the customer. we could end this predatory practice. the rule requires brokers to disclose their fees, financial incentives when offering a financial product, introducing much-needed transparency to the process. right now advisors are under no obligation to disclose this information, and when it comes to retirement, every penny counts. it's unconscionable that we would allow self-interested advisors to job hardworking american families of their hard-earned retirement savings. the bottom line is that we must pursue policy solutions that benefit working families, that help them to adequately prepare for retirement.
please oppose the resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves his time, and the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. no matter, there we go again. no matter how many times you say $17 billion doesn't mean it's a fact. at this time i yield two minutes to my good friend, mr. luke messer from indiana, and he has two very special guests with him, his children, who are here on the house floor with him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. messer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.j.res. 88 and commend my colleague from tennessee for bringing this important measure forward. . in life and public service, we are not just responsible for our intentions. we are responsible for the results, the true consequences of our actions. unfortunately, the obama administration often seems to
ignore this simple life wisdom. my colleagues across the aisle have spent a lot of time today talking about their good intentions with this thousand-page rule. you know, it may be true. but the department of labor's fiduciary rule was intended to protect consumers. the problem is, the rule will, in fact, have the opposite result. we need more families saving for retirement, and those families need sound financial advice. instead of increasing access to financial advice for those who need it most, this rule will cut off access to affordable retirement counsel for many lower and middle income americans. that's the true result of the so-called fiduciary rule. dr. roe's legislation, h.j.res. 88, would stop this rule from taking effect, stand up to the federal bureaucrats, and protect american families struggling to save for their future.
i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yield back his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia virginia tech. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield two -- from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just as we expect our doctor to act in our best interest, so should the financial advisor who we pay to help us make those very important investment decisions for retirement. there is nothing strange about this rule. it's trying to bring us up to speed with the times. this rule says that the savers' best interest comes first before the financial advisors' commission can be taken into consideration or before that financial advisor can make decisions based on his or her association to a particular type of investment.
30 years ago maybe this wasn't a big issue because 30 years ago folks like my parents used to get their retirement savings through their pension. you paid into it through your work. and you knew how much you would get out. it was fixed. it's what we called defined benefit plans. your benefit was designed because you kept contributing while you worked. those are pretty much gone. today it's all about 401-k's, e.r.a.'s w. all of a -- i.r.a.'s where all of a sudden you have to make your investment. it's based on what the market does. now you have to make sure your money in this 401-k goes to the right investment vehicles. best thing to do is go to someone who can give you advice. too often some of these advisors are advising you not based on what's in your best interest but where they can get an extra commission or if they have an association with a particular investment. this rule simply says this. make your decision in the best interest of the saver not in your best interest as the financial advisor.
that's all it says. it's a big rule. why? because the financial services industry said wait a minute, you can't say that. you got to say ways that don't affect the way we have a relationship with that saver. so all of those accommodations were made to try to deal with it so we would always have have investment advisors who would deal with american savers. remember, the problem here is that a loft americans don't have a lot to save. and a lot of investment advisors say you're not worth my tifmente what we don't want to do is restrict those investment advisors from talking to the average american who doesn't have all that much to save for retirement. but we don't want to say to that investment advisor, go ahead and take advantage of that saver. this is the best interest rule for the saver. vote against this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i would like to inquire as to the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee has 15 1/2 minutes.
the gentleman from virginia has 10 minutes remaining. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like at this time to yield one minute to the -- my distinguished colleague from south carolina, member of the education and work force committee, joe wilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: thank you, chairman phil roe, for yielding. i appreciate your leadership on this issue for the american families. i'm in strong support of the resolution to disapprove of the department of labor's fiduciary rule. this 1,000-page rule is yet another one of the president's burdensome expensive regulations. instead of helping american families by expanding access to financial advice, the department of labor has overly restricted the definition of a fiduciary, creates new obstacles for small business owners. just reading the rule, much less picking it up, of 1,000 pages is going to cost consumers. this administration is misguided fiduciary rule will make the -- harder for small
businesses to assist their employees in preparing for retirement, increase its cost, and limits choices for those who need the advice most. american families. in the past months, i have met with business leaders and financial advisors of the highest integrity across the second district who share my concerns about the negative impacts of this unworkable regulation which limits freedom. i appreciate the leadership, again, of chairman phil roe, for sponsoring the resolution, urge my colleagues to vote in support. i yield back the balance of my time i yield to back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york who has worked hard on this issue, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i strongly oppose this resolution. the department of labor's fiduciary rule is president obama's top remaining domestic priority, and i think we owe
the american consumer, the american people, and our seniors, we owe them our support. this rule advances a very simple principle. if you are giving investment advice to someone and you're being paid for this advice, then it simply says that you must put the interest, the interest of the consumer, first. you must think about the consumer before you think about yourself or making your firm a fee or helping someone else besides the consumer. it merely says think about the consumer and protect their interest. this is not the -- just common sense. it is the fair, honest thing. we shouldn't have to legislate this. we are legislating it because there are abuses in this area. we are trying to stop these
abuses and give good investment advice to good american citizens. and let's not forget that most investors think it's already the law. they think that their advisors are giving their their best advice. this merely says you have to think about the senior and the american people. this should be like having a glass of water. this should be -- not be a vote and that we are coming to the floor to try to roll back a rule that helps americans have fair and just savings is absolutely outrageous. if you have a problem, go to the department of labor. i have been there six times. i raised concerns. they incorporated every single change in the rule. they gave advance time. they have bent over backwards to everyone who raised an issue in this congress and every member of industry. that's why it's so long. this protects the interests,
the finances of the american people. it puts money, saves money in their pockets instead of forcing them to spend it on fees that are unnecessary and in products they don't need. a vote for this is a vote against the american family. please vote against it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i believe anyone who votes against this does not have the interest of america in their hearts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. just to clear this up a little bit, if only best interest, we all agree, everybody on both sides of the aisle, mr. scott and i have agreed on this repetitively. if that were the case, why did just one sentence on one page and not a thousand pages. and number two, this is about small investors. look -- a higher income investor like my sex this bill doesn't affect one bit. it will not affect me at all. it affects nobody on wall street because most of us pay a
percent of assets in a fee. and that's what we do. so that is exactly what this bill is dofplgt we are worried about small and low-income investors and we have seen exactly this, mr. speaker, in england. it's going to be repeated here once again. at this point in time i'd like to yield one minute to my good friend and fellow member of the education and work force, buddy carter from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to express my support for h.j.res. 88, a resolution disapproving the department of labor's final rule changing the definition of fiduciary. this new definition hits low and middle income savers the hardens and leave many unable to save for retirement at all. additionally, it would make it slig more difficult for small businesses to seek the investment advice they need to provide for their employees to plan and save for retirement. having opened and operated community pharmacies for nearly 30 years, i take pride in
having provided my employees with the tools they needed to achieve financial independence and retirement investment plans are one of the most important tools in this effort. like many small business owners, i consider my employees part of my family and that is why h.j.res. 88 is so important. the new rule is a classic case of the federal government stepping in the way of a main street success story with a washington bureaucrat knows best mentality, and it must be stopped. americans have the right to choose how they save and what to save for, and this final rule from d.o.l. will only increase burdens on americans and small businesses. limit opportunities and openly hurt their chances. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. carter: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to a strong consumer advocate, the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is
recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank you, mr. scott, for yielding to me and for your commitment to improving the lives of working americans and retirees. this is a very dangerous bill. 86% of americans believe that we are facing a retirement crisis in this country, and 75% are concerned about their own ability to have a secure retirement. more americans fear outliving their money than they fear death. and eight in 10 want us to help them have a guaranteed stream of income in retirement. that's why i'm just amazed that my republican colleagues are pushing this resolution of disapproval on a carefully drafted -- crafted, thoughtfully designed rule to improve retirement security, especially for people who need the help. we have moved to an era where most workers, if they are offered any pension at all, are given defined contribution options like self-directed i.r.a.'s and 401-k's.
this means their retirement security relies on the individual decision that is they make, and many turn to financial advisors for guidance. they believe that when they pay for advice that advice will be -- the advice that will be given will be in their best interest. why shouldn't they believe that? and the rules my republican colleagues would want to overturn would ensure their best interest. what happens when retirement investment isn't in the client's best interest? well, hard-earned retirement dollars are lost and it's estimated that americans lose $17 billion a year because of conflicted advice. and that individuals could lose nearly 25% of their assets over a 35-year period. working women and men in this country are -- and retirees are struggling. and the best interest standard is one step to help them. i urge all of my colleagues to stand up for retirement security to reject this
dangerous resolution. the best interest standard shouldn't just apply to financial advisors, it should apply to us. here in congress. let's vote to protect the best interest of our constituents. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for his time. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i would like to yield one minute to my good friend and fellow member of the education and work force committee, mr. rick allen from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of h.j.res. 88, legislation that would disapprove of the department of labor's fiduciary rule. this new d.o.l. fiduciary rule definition will impose costly new mandates and burdensome regulations on retirement advisors. this will negatively affect and disproportionately hurt low and middle income families seeking retirement advice who do not have enough in savings to
afford an ongoing fee for service approach. in other words, it is just another washington one-size-fits-all solution that hurts those who may need financial advice the most. five years ago the obama administration introduced a similar rule that was met with much opposition. well, not much has changed in those five years. this rule will do more harm than good to the very people it is claiming to protect. . the majority of my time in washington is fighting executive and agency overreach, and this rule is just another example of the failed obama administration's attempt at federal government mow opization of retirement -- monopolyization retirement advice. the people in my district are sick and tired of thighs unelected bureaucrats in these departments and agencies and these rules. i'm proud to co-sponsor h.j.res. 88, and i ask my colleagues to support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee
reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota, a hardworking advocate for workers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: let me thank the gentleman from virginia and his hard work. we know that when people leave their jobs they may get a call from an advisor offering to help the worker to roll over their 401-k or 403-b into an i.r.a. what the worker does not know is that the advisor oftentimes is really a salesperson. that salesperson has no responsibility to put the worker's best interest first. the law did not require a best interest standard. so some advisors steer people to high-cost products with hidden fees and hidden commissions. this practice by some but not all financial advisors strip wealth from families trying to save for retirement. for 15 years, consumer and investor advocates fought to save them from the conflicts of interest. finally obama administration worked for a best interest standard. today's vote is clear -- do you protect investors from conflict
of interest? i do. that's why i oppose today's efforts by republicans to put the profit of financial advisors ahead of the future retirees. best interest of the saver and worker, not the best interest of the industry, that's what you should vote today. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: i thank you, mr. speaker. the average social security recipient in this country is $1,300. we have 29% of the people, millions of people over the age of 55 with no savings. i don't believe for one minute anybody in this chamber actually believes 100-page bill will make it easier to do and less expensive to do. i have never seen that in the history of the world. at this point in the time i would like to yield one minute to my good friend from new hampshire, frank guinta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for one minute. mr. guinta: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand in strong sport of
house joint resolution 88, disapproving of the harmful rules submitted by the department of labor. 1,000 pages to define one word. no wonder why the american people are angry and frustrated with washington, d.c. they should be. i think people are a little bit smarter to understand the word -- the term fiduciary. this rule threatens small businesses and individual savers by replacing current regulations dealing with investment advice, but we want to make sure, of course, that consumers are being protected and giving the best advice possible. but the d.o.l. rule is not the way to do it. i'm concerned that the department proposal would be particularly harmful to low and middle-income working american families looking for options to save, to invest in the plan for their future. compliance with this rule would limit educational opportunities for individual retirement accounts and retirement savings plans about these services would be considered providing recommendations. that just doesn't make sense to me. the proposal would make it
difficult and much more difficult for people in my district and people across the country to save for their future. the cost of compliance is significant and i urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, we have possibly two more speakers. will the gentleman advise me how many more speakers he has? mr. roe: we have six more. mr. scott: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. and the gentleman from tennessee has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege at this point to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin. sean duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. it's interesting listening to this debate. my friends across the aisle are telling me that this is going to help americans. well, being creative i can think of few americans this will help. the loggers in northern
wisconsin who are cutting wood and the paper makers will help them for all the copies of this 1,000-page bill. and it will help the trial bar. if you look at 1,000-page rule, how does anybody comply with that? the department of labor doesn't understand this rule. no one across this aisle understands this rule. and so when a small town investment advisor breaks this 1,000-page bill, in comes the trial bar and sues. it's a giveaway to the trial bar. listen, we had this conversation all afternoon. this is going to hurt middle-income, low-income individuals, low-income savers. if you're a millionaire or billionaire, don't worry. you are going to be fine. you are still going to get that personalized financial advice, but if you're someone in my district, guess what they're going to say? your financial advisor will say, sorry, sir, i can't service you anymore, i can't give you advice. so what are my friends across the aisle going to ask my constituents to do? they'll be asked to sign up
online for a robe oweadvisor where they'll answer eight to 10 questions and the computer will spit out for them. they get computer advice, not personal advice. so when markets move and people make erratic decisions, bad decisions when markets move, you get your computer advising you instead of calling a person, aned a vidsor who say, listen, you won't retire 10, 15 years from now, don't sell. hold on. you won't get that advice because you got a computer. i think we have to look at the real intent of this law. less people will save and more people will save even less. and so at the end of the day, you're going to see americans enter into their retirement years without having a little nest egg for their retirement which means more americans are going to be more relyant and more de-- reliant and more dependent on the government which this has all been about, more government reliance. let's make sure we empower our itizens, our people to get
financial advice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arkansas, french hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. hill: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from tennessee. i rise in support of this joint resolution. while this rule may be well intended, its effects will lead to higher fees, lack of diversity and choice and limit, as has been noted, access to professional retirement planning and guidance for those who need it the most, low balance, smaller investors trying to save every month for their retirement. i've long believed that the securities and exchange commission is the governing agency most expert and should have been taking the lead on this project of the fiduciary rule. the administration should have insisted on it. instead, they've been off track
for five years. we're left with 1,000-page rule that creates a confusing, bifurcated set of standards that will accuse -- will confuse investment advisors and their clients trying to save for retirement. americans need more affordable retirement choices, not less. i thank the gentleman from tennessee and mrs. wagner for their work on this effort, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia reserves. so the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege at this point to yield one minute to my good friend from new jersey and fellow classmate, leonard lance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. and i commend dr. roe for his significant effort in this regard. i oppose the department of labor's recently finalized fiduciary rule. the new regulations will generate nearly 57,000 paperwork hours per year and cost americans billions of dollars in duplicative fees.
it will hurt hardworking middle-class american families. as a similar rule hurt middle-class hardworking british families. bipartisan legislation already advancing in the house protects access to affordable retirement advice, and that is the appropriate way to implement changes in the law. i urge all my colleagues to support resolution 88 and oppose this most recent effort by the executive branch to bypass congress and the american people and enact controversial policy by fiat. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege at this time to yield one minute to the distinguished the gentlelady from -- distinguished the gentlelady from california, amy walters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
mrs. walters: this makes it more challenging for hardworking americans to plan for retirement. this ill-advised rule will limit choice and access for those who seek financial advice to prepare foyer their futures. it will be especially damaging to middle-class families who will access to affordable retirement advice and will discourage small businesses from helping their employees save for retirement. saving for the future is difficult enough and now this out-of-touch administration is stepping in to make it even more challenging. we can and we must get washington out of the way. americans cannot afford to have the federal government interfering in their retirement planning. under the congressional review act, we can prevent implementation of this harmful rule. congress should do everything it can to empower americans to secure their futures. i urge my colleagues to support h.j. resolution 88 to stop this misguided government intervention and allow the american people to achieve their retirement dreams. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from virginia is
recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that the statement of administration policy be entered. it notes that the outdated regulations in place before this rulemaking did not ensure the financial advisors acted in their clients' best interest. said some firms had incentivized advisors to steer clients into products that have higher fees and lower returns. the complete statement, i ask unanimous consent to be placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: the request will be made under general leave. the gentleman is recognized and the gentleman from virginia does have five minutes remaining. mr. scott: i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. scott: we have two additional speakers but they're not here yet so we may be prepared to close. mr. roe: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: still the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, darren lahood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute.
mr. lahood: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of house joint resolution 88, the department of labor's fiduciary rule would significantly affect constituents in my district. state farm insurance in bloomington, illinois, is headquartered in my district. state farm and its agents offer services and products to help low and moderate-income investors make the best decisions about their finances. however, this rule by the obama administration targets those service providers and its agents. it would raise compliance cost, limit the advice companies can provide for their own employees and penalizes small business who is want to provide their employees with a 401-k plan. the bottom line is that this rule would drastically narrow the access that hardworking americans have to retirement advice. hurting middle and working-class families. more bureaucratic burdens from the obama administration in the form of a $1,000-page regulation is not a recipe for
economic growth in this country. stop choking the u.s. economy. support this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, my good friend, mike kelley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman from tennessee. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.j.res. 88. i've been hear now for five years and it seems to be the same theme. you poor, poor, stupid people. only the government can help you decide how you should get ready for your retirement. and i don't think there's any more words that i'm here from the government and i'm here to help you. we're looking at the dismantling of people helping everyday people on retirement decisions. it's a very difficult thing to navigate but yet we think we can do it better here because we do such a fantastic job.
we're only $20 trillion in the red. we've already ruined their retirement for them. gets to the point of being stupeifying to stand here in the people's house and think the administration, the department of labor came up with an 1,100-page definition of what the fiduciary responsibility should be. stunning, stunning. the real fiduciary responsibility remains in the house. it's our responsibility to protect the hardworking taxpayers. it's our responsibility to make sure that hardworking american taxpayers who advise should be -- should ought to exist. this will put them out of work. why? this is misguided. this is about a bigger government, a more intrusive government, a government that taxes you more and serves you less. it's that simple. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close if the
entleman is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from tennessee has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the remaining time. mr. scott: under general leave i'll be introducing a letter in opposition to the resolution in support of the rule from a long list of consumer organizations, and also five pages of quotes from industry officials in support of the rule. second two points that i'd like to make and one is when all you can complain about is the size of the bill, you know you have a very weak argument. second, they mentioned the united kingdom. as i understand the united kingdom plan, they banned commissions. so it's not the same thick. this rule will allow commissions if those commissions are in the best interest of the consumer.
mr. speaker, last week the committee on education and work force hastily marked up this joint resolution only 48 hours after it was introduced. this week the house majority has rushed it to the floor for a vote only 21 days after the rule was published. according to the congressional research service, that's 1/5 of the average time between the time a final rule is issued or published and when the c.r.a. vote occurs. if anyone has concerns about the rule, those concerns can be addressed to the department of labor. the department can issue clarifications and guidance. but instead of seeking -- reserving judgment and seeking clarification, this resolution is offered even would have the effect of not only rejecting this rule but any similar rule in the foreseeable future. this joint resolution may pass the house today, it may pass the senate next month, but the president will veto t there are no votes -- there are not the
votes to override the veeto. that's simple arithmetic. we are just wasting our time. instead of wasting time on this sure to be veto joint resolution, the house should be helping working people make ends meet and better provide a future for their girn and grandchildren. we shouldn't be taking up -- grandchildren. -- children and grand chirnt. we should be taking up legislation that levels the playing field for strengthening protections from discrimination. and strengthening workers' ability to have a safe and secure retirement. all of that will be the focus of house democrats, but for now i urge my colleagues to protect workers' hard-earned retirement funds by voting no on this resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the remainder of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. the gentleman has three minutes. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. i want to thank my colleague, mr. scott, for the civility of
this debate. in closing i want to remind my colleagues that a yes vote on this resolution will protect access to affordable retirement advice and allow us to get back to delivering real solution that is will empower every american to save for the future. mr. speaker, i don't think it's wasting time to help and protect working families and small business from this onerous rule that may actually prevent them from saving for the future. as we have said here on the house floor, almost a third of all americans, it distresses me every day, do not have any retirement savings or pension plan. they are looking at a $1,300 a month social security to live a very long time. our life expectencies are going up so we should be doing everything we can to help people make it easier for them to save for retirement. i started a small medical practice, joined four other doctors, almost 40 years ago now. we started out with a very small pension plan for all of
our employees. it was a brokered dealer investment situation. we have now grown that to 450 employees. we have a totally different arrangement because we have a different business model now. higher income and higher earning people like myself don't have to worry about this rule. it will not affect us. it will affect small businesses trying to get started and individuals like my children who are out there starting their pension plans. if you believe as i do that the american people deserve better than a flawed rule that will wreak havoc on workers and retirees, i urge you to support this resolution. look, mr. speaker, this is a thousand-page bill to define one word. this is a webster's dictionary that defines every word in the english language, which is only slightly bigger than that 1,000-page bill right there. i don't think anybody believes that's going to make it easier for people to retire in this
country. on behalf of every american family, i urge you to stand up for affordable retirement advice and support h.j. resolution 88. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back his tifmente all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 706, the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: disapproving the rules submitted by the department of labor relating to the definition of the term fiduciary. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from virginia ask for the yeas and nays. mr. scott: yes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote on the yeas and nays will rise.
i think take our daughters and sons to workday is a wonderful thing. most of the meetings i have been in today have been with sons and daughters. it's just made it a great day. i look forward to meeting all of you afterwards. i have two items this morning. first, today i invited prime minister modey of india to address a joint meeting of congress when he visits washington this summer. india is the most populous democrat sane soon it will be the most populous contry. the friendship between our nations is a pillar of stability in a very, very important region. this address presents a special opportunity for us to deepen our ties withure ally, india. it is a chance to mountaineer from the prime minister on how we can work together to promote our shared values and to increase prosperity. i want to thank chairman royce and congressman holding for their leadership and for their commitment to this relationship with india. this will be the first joint meeting of this speakership.
we certainly look forward to welcoming the prime minister in the united states capitol this summer. i believe it's june 8. second, today the economy clocked in in the first quarter at .5%. that's next to nothing. this is an a -- this is a sign that this is not a healthy economy. this economy is far from its potential. this is why we are passing bills just this week to help boost manufacturing and to help increase start-ups. but there are only so many things we can do in a divided government. so as part of our policy agenda, we are going to show the country how we can get our economy back on track. we do not have to settle for .5% economic growth. we know we can do much better than this but for our government. so we need to have an agenda that we take to the country and say here's how you get real growth in this economy. here's how you get real economic growth. tax reform. open up our energy development.
regulatory relief to keep the economy open. to give start-ups life and breath. america can do better. americans can do better. we look forward to presenting this country with a very, very clear and compelling choice. i got to say, of all the things that helped fix so many of our problems, it is getting real economic growth, job creation, wage growth. that is something that we have to do, our policies that are being pursued right now are holding us back. this is the eighth year of this presidency and these policies and they are not working and we will offer the country a choice. with that, answer your questions. reporter: something off what you just said about the end of the obama presidency. this should be in theory in divided government a good time because the president is trying to get a bipartisan agenda and legacy passed. and the republicans will be happen seeing obama go.
yet you see it's breaking down on the senate side. [inaudible] what's your observation about the end of this period compared to other times? mr. ryan: this is my third president i have served with. i say this is the most ideological president. he's they dogmatic in pursuit of his ideology. i don't see a bridging of the gap because of the nature of this presidentcy. that's point number two. point number two, in spite of that we are still getting things done. look, we got the biggest highway bill in a decade. we rewrote our customs laws. the most comprehensive rewrite of our k through 12 education laws in 25 years. and urgent legislation is moving through the system. we have a tax deal that gives certainty to businesses. opioids is making its way through. we have a lot of bills moving through committee this week. there are still things getting done. honestly, the big basics, the big issues, that's what this
divided government will not produce because, look, i ran against the guy in the last election. i don't agree with him on big issues. we as the alternative party are going to step up and be an alternative party, be a proposition party, and show the country what a real growth agenda looks like because the policies that have been pursued by this administration, specifically, these regulatory policies, fiduciary rule, overtime rule, that's from one agency, these are putting a chilling effect on growth, compromising businesses. we have to make this logjam with a cleansing, clearing election that will give us the ability to actually pass the big things that need to get done to fix this and get us back on path of growth. reporter: yesterday i spoke with rob beneficiaryon and mr. grijalva about the puerto rico bill. topics we are not going to get anything done o bay the may 1 deadline. hitting that deadline may be,
you said you want to stay away from chaos, may be causing panic, not their words, might force congress to get real about this issue. do you think that helps? mr. ryan: i don't think of it that way. we had a long meeting about this yesterday. the resources committee and treasury department are getting very close. this gets very technical in nature. and so i think treasury's working on good faith, resources is working in good faith. they are working to put something together. so that when we return from our work period next week we are hoping to have some things more specific to deal with. again, the goal here is to bring order to the chaos. it is to give oversight the kind of authority they need to make sure they get the fiscal house in record, restructure the debt, and make sure taxpayers are not involved in this. those objectives will be achieved based on what i know where these negotiations are going. eporter: your predecessor
called senator cruz, quote -- lucifer in the flesh. i have democrat friends and republican friends. mr. ryan: there are children here. reporter: i never worked with a more miserable son in my life. characterize your relationship with senator cruz. mr. ryan: i have a better relationship. my job is to help unify our party. take all pieces of the conservative movement in the republican party and help stitch them together. especially after a primary. i have a very good relationship with both of these men. and i'm going to keep it that way. reporter: to every's question at the beginning about not only president's legacy, but things you can get done. you said you're a supporter of criminal justice reform in principle. i know committees are working on it. can you put that in the context of things you can get done. do you have confidence with the clock ticking this summer that
that might actual get to the president's desk? mr. ryan: i'm hopeful because the senate has made some progress. judiciary got a little focused on the moment for opioid. when they are done with that, they'll go back -- i believe -- don't quote me, they have two more bills they want to get out of committee, so then we have a package to bring to the floor. . we've got four already out of committee. the committee of jurisdiction got sidetracked for a good reason, for a good cause and they'll get back on top of this. and then, i don't have a specific timeline because i want to get it done. so i think because of the -- because of the progress made in the other body, because of the fact that four of our bills are up, we've got two more we want to get done, we're on track for that i'm hopeful and optimistic. >> you're seeing commonality? >> watch the rest of this briefing at c span.org. we return to live coverage of
the house where members are moving into another round of voting. following order. passage of house joint resolution 88, suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2901 and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of house joint resolution 88, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 88, joint resolution disapproving of the rules submitted by the department of labor relating to the definition of the term fiduciary. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. fndfnd
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 234, the nays are 183. the joint resolution is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from florida, mr. wall, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2901 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 404, h.r. 2901. a bill to amend the flood disaster program protection act of 1973 to require that certain buildings and personnel property be covered by flood insurance and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 419, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, which the chair will
speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. roe: i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: i rise today to recognize the appalachian service product, food city and others in building a home for colleen and steve treadway in bristol, tennessee. they first applied for the home repair program to make a home for their newly adopted children. when they heard the story, they decided to do more than just renovations. the bristol motor speedway and others built the new home at 60 hours at no cost to the family. this new three bedroom house will give them a better home to care for their children and
grow. i'm proud to recognize a.s.p. and the president and the bristol motor speedway, food city and countless volunteers for their kindness and generosity towards the treadway family and our community. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. 41st ommemorate the anniversary of the fall of saigon. ms. sanchez: we must remember our fallen soldiers, american veterans and suth vietnamese allies who fought and died in the name of freedom and
democracy. unfortunately the government of vietnam continues to crack down on citizens by using article 79 of the constitution, which prohibits political pluralism or prohibits associating pro democracy party. man week, i met with ms. vu khan. mr. win is being detained by the vee in a meese government for peacefully expressing his views on democracy. as president obama prepares to visit vietnam, i urge the president to make human rights a key priority and i strongly urge the president to call for the release of human activist. it's time, it's time for the united states to take a strong and principled stand against
vietnam's ongoing human rights violations. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek michigan? >> request to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the rotary club of lansing, this may i is celebrating service above self. the club was founded on may 29, 1916 and has been dedicated to many community and international service projects ever since. over the past 100 years, they have provided $2 million grants in local and international projects. they include the rotary vet clinic at the zoo, the hospice of lansing residential facility and the hope scholarship program, the lansing for at-risk youth and reconstruction of a
school in sri lanka. they also support the efforts of rotary international and in its fight to eradicate polio. i congratulate them on 100 years of service. thank you lansing rotary for the commitment to the people and the lansing community. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized one minute. >> thank you very much. it fills me with great pride to congratulate students from my sfern valley district at north hollywood district. they won the science bowl competition. it tests students' knowledge in all areas of science quizzing them in a fast-paced question
and answer format. these bowls help our students to become researchers and engineers. as a researcher myself there is growing demand for talent in science, technology and math. it is promising to see them coming out of the sfern schools with such talent. it is a huge accomplishment. i will be cheering you on as you compete at the national finals here in washington d.c. con grass lations, i yield -- scongratlations, i yield back. mr. poe: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: 100 years ago, the world was in a war so big that it was called the war to end all
wars. world war i started in 1914 and involved 32 nations and pitted the allies and stretched across five continents. in 1917, the british intercepted a telegram called the zimmerman telegram from the german government to mexico encouraging mexico to join germ my and then it would take mexico, arizona. after the sinking of ships, and the publication of the zimmerman telegram, united states congress declared war in april of 1917. 4.5 million americans signed up to fight including a man named frank buckles when he was 16. e lived to theage of 110 and died in 2011. they proved the decisive
difference. the war was over on the 11th day of the 11th month at the 11th hour. there were 30 million casualties worldwide, civilian and military. mr. speaker, after the war, the united states became an international power. dough boys died over there. equal number died when they got home with the spanish flu. we remember them all. 100 years ago this year for the worst casualty of war is to be forgotten. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. payne: mr. speaker, we have a situation that is getting very serious in this nation and it is
the issue of drinking water in schools. i hail from the 10th congressional district of the state of new jersey and after traveling to flint, michigan, on march 4 to listen to the people of that community talk about what had happened in their community around their drinking water and how their children had been poisonned, a potential of 9,000 children having issues with lead, i came back to newark, new jersey, my home, knowing that newark is the third oldest city in the nation. and i took action. i spoke to several mayors in my community and i said you need to pay attention to what is going on with drinking water. there's a problem. lo and behold, 30 schools in newark, new jersey, there were found elevated levels of lead.
so i took action and i have introduced the testing for lead act in schools. and this will allow states that have -- that get federal dollars from the federal government to help schools test for lead. it's not only a city's issue. in several communities around newark, this issue has been found in the suburbs. so it's coming to a community near you. i ask my colleagues to support the test for lead act. and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nea seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute around revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> the current administration has changed the way business is done in america, by making
unilateral changes to the white collar exemption in the fair labor standards act, businesses will be forced to change their investment and growth strategy. this big government, pie in the sky philosophy doesn't grasp the realities of main street america. it would require employees to pay overtime for all who make over $50,400 or less per year. the administration's own chief council at the small business administration pointed out that research for this comprehensive rule change was based on assumptions and lacked industry data and involvement. mr. yoho: here's another example of an agency reinterpreting an old law from 1938 and changing toyota fit the current administration's agenda. this is law make big executive fiat and is unconstitutional. it's time for congress to revive the legislative and hold an executive branch accountable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the
ntleman from california, mr. desaulnier is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. desaulnier: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to support the raise the wage act that was introduced almost exactly one year ago today. raising the minimum wage is critical to addressing income inequality in the united states. one of the most pressing issues facing our nation. but the majority is not even -- has not even called a hearing on this issue. yesterday the committee on education and work force democrats held our own forum on this issue during which we considered the evidence and support of raising the minimum wage. we heard from business leaders and economists that raising the wage will reduce work force
turnover, stimulate consumer spending, and grow jobs. the evidence is absolutely clear that raising the minimum wage will give 35 million american workers a raise and lift 4.5 million americans out of poverty. it's also abundantly clear that raising the minimum wage will benefit business and the u.s. economy. that may be why in a recent poll from republican pollster frank luntz 80% of businesses supported raising the minimum wage. the record could not be more clear. raising the minimum wage is good for workers, business, and the american economy. that is why today i would like to enter into the record testimony from yesterday's member forum on the business case for raising the federal minimum wage. presented by david cooper of the economic policy institute, terry deutchman of letter i don't thinkic inc., scot nash of mom's
organic and carmen ortiz-larson of aquus inc. it's time for congress to raise the federal minimum wage. he we learned yesterday that of the people who would be most impacted by raising the minimum wage only 10% are teens, as opposed to a popular misconception. in fact, the average age affected is 35 and 56% are women. in addition, nearly one third of all hispanics and one third of all african-americans would get a raise by enacting this act. 30% of working mothers would get a raise. it's time that we stand up for hard working people all across america and give them a well deserved and long overdue raise. i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. takano. mr. takano: i thank my colleague from the state of california, my home state of california for yielding time. i'm glad to stand here today in
support of the raise the wage act and i want to thank my colleagues for standing with me today to promote the benefits of increasing the minimum wage. while critics warn of mass layoffs and economic calamities, studies consistently show that a higher minimum wage will stimulate the economy and lift workers out of poverty. we cannot allow ideology and partisanship to stop millions of workers from earning a living wage. i re-- a report on poverty in my own community which my office produced last year revealed the urgency of this issue. and here's what we found. last year, a single parent of two people working full time -- a single parent of two, a parent of two kids, working full time at the minimum wage in riverside, california is likely to fall $600 short of what they
need to get by every month. not only does this situation violate the premise of the american dream that hard work -- that working hard and playing by the rules will land you in the middle class, it also damages our economy. at u.c. berke -- a u.c. bexar berkley study found low wages cost american taxpayers $152 billion each year on social welfare programs for working families. we are effectively subsidizing companies that do not pay their workers a living wage. there's a myth, a myth that the typical minimum wage earner is a high school student. a high school student living at home, working hart part-time. -- part time. just a g people make up tiny fraction of the minimum wage work force. 89% of the workers who would benefit from a federal minimum
wage increase to $12 an her are age 20 or older. nearly 40% of this work force are older than 40. these are not kids on a summer job. these are parents who are seeking to provide for their children. with more money in their pockets, these workers could take a few extra trips to the grocery store, buy new supplies for their -- new school supplies for their children, or save up to buy a home. all of which would help stimulate our economy. all of us have expressed serious concerns about rising income inequality in our communities. we all understand that the economy has been thrown out of balance because the rules that protect workers from exploitation have atrophied over time. the minimum wage is a clear example of that trend.
the real value of the federal minimum wage has declined 24% since 1968. workers are not worth 24% less than they were 50 years ago, and families cannot get by with 24% less than they did 50 years ago. raising the minimum wage is not only good policy, it's popular policy. paying workers a living wage reduces turnover, improves worker morale and increases productivity. , a poll byse reasons the american business found that 47% of small businesses support raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour by 020678 and most reveal, the republican pollster, frank lutz, found 0% of business executives support raising the minimum wage.
and at this moment, mr. speaker, you know, i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record an article from "the washington post" describing this formerly secret poll done by frank luntz of these business executive the one i referenced in my remarks that found that 80% of actually business executives support increasing the men wum -- minimum wage. so i ask that this be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. takano: i urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents, listen to these business owners and raise the minimum wage. it is pastime that we took this action to improve the lives of millions of working americans and strengthen our economy. thank you and i yield back. mr. desaulnier: thank you to my colleague from california. i would now like to yield to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro.
ms. delauro: i thank my colleague, i'm proud to join with you this afternoon to talk about an issue of critical importance to the -- an issue of critical importance to the people of this nation and i am, as i said, proud to join with my colleagues gathered here tonight to be able to do this. and obviously i want to be very, of a ear that the issue rise in our minimum wage, for the length oftime i've served in this body which is 25 years, i have been a strong supporter of increasing the minimum wage because i believe that it has sustained america's working families and it's justified. which is why i stongly support the raise the wage act. we need to index the minimum wage. it needs to keep up with inflation. and it is long pastime that this
get done. time goes on, costs increase, the minimum wage ought to increase. we can't afford to settle for the status quo. full time work at the current nimum wage of $7.25 leaves a family of three below the federal poverty line. this disproportionately, by the way, hurts women. who make up two out of three workers making me minimum wage. that means low wage workers have to work longer hours to achieve the standard of living that was considered the bare minimum almost a half century ago. the greatest economic challenge that faces our nation today is that too many americans are in jobs that do not pay them enough to on. raising the minimum wage would directly or indirectly lift wages for more than 35 million workers. or more than one in four in the
united states. the raise the wage act would lift 4.5 million americans out of poverty and reduce income inequality. the low minimum wage, by the way is not just bad for workers. it's bad for business and the entire economy. low wages limit consumer demand which staals our country's economic growth. that hurts everyone. a raise long overdue for hardworking americans. if you realize that between 1948 and 1973, productivity and compensation grew at nearly equal rates. ut from 1973 to 2014, american workers' productivity grew by 72%. they were producing more. while hourly worker compensation
grew by just 9%. ages for the top 1% have grown 138% since 1979. while ages at the -- for the bottom 90% have only grown 15%. we have an opportunity to make a real step toward closing this gap. there's a broad and growing consensus on the need to raise the wage and the poll my colleagues have referenced, this is a poll of business executives and i think they were trying to hide it. didn't think they wanted to get it out. but business executives. this is a poll conducted by frank luntz, a republican pollster who found that 80% supported raising the federal minimum wage. if my colleagues across oh the aisle want to make a real impact on poverty in the united states, they would support legislation that helps working families cope with rising costs, like the raise the wage act. the american people have waited
long enough. it's time to make sure that all of our workers can make a decent pay for a hard day's work, get a decent day's pay. i urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. also if i can, mr. speaker, republicans contend that they can't raise the wage because doing so would kill jobs. so i'm going to ask unanimous consent to place into the record a paper from the national employment law project describing, among other research, two metastudies on the effects of the minimum wage on employment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. delauro: this document examined 64 minimum wage studies measuring the effect of minimum wage on teenage employment in the united states. published between 1972 and 2007. while the studies estimated a range of employment effects, the gentleman, mr. stanley, and the
other gentleman found the most precise estimates in the studies were around zero or near zero employment effects. the second is from paul wolfson and dale bellman. it examines studies published since 2000 on the employment effect on minimum wage increases. this metaanalysis also found that the best estimate in the compiled studies revealed no statistically significant negative employment effects. we the years, over many years, that any increase in the minimum wage would, my gosh, send the u.s. economy into a tailspin. and every time it has proven false. it was false then, it is false now. let us raise the minimum wage and let us support the raise the wage act. i want to thank my colleague from california for including me in this