José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a historic moment, so let's pay attention. I rise in support of the en bloc amendments. I appreciate the chairman's inclusion of amendments for Democratic Members. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendment. I think it is a fine example of what we can do every so often. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to hear the other side protecting the right of the SEC to do its work when the budget and the bill show just the opposite. This amendment is yet another attack on the independence and efficacy of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also represents an attack on shareholders. When special interests cannot win ballot questions put to their shareholders, they seek protection from Congress to change the rules of the game. Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the SEC from proposing, implementing, or enforcing any regulatory action on the issue of universal proxy ballots. These universal proxy ballots would let shareholders vote for whomever they wish to represent them on the corporate boards. This is a vital consideration in proxy contests since board seats and, in some cases, board control are at stake. It would also make for a fairer, less cumbersome voting process. Right now, there is a two-tiered system governing shareholder elections. Shareholders in attendance at meetings, particularly in proxy contests, have the ability to receive a legal ballot that allows them to pick and choose among all of the candidates who are duly nominated. Shareholders who are not in attendance do not have that ability and, typically, can only choose from among nominees who appear on management's or a dissident's ballot, but not both. This limits shareholders' choice. Many advocates and investors, including the Council of Institutional Investors, have written to the SEC and have asked them to address this issue. Indeed, the CII filed a rulemaking petition to this effect. Likewise, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee, which is the group of outside experts tasked with the responsibility under Dodd-Frank to advise the SEC on issues of investor protection, called upon the SEC to take action on this issue. Corporate governance is only effective when boards are elected in a free and fair manner. The SEC should take steps to eliminate disenfranchisement in proxy contests in cases where shareholders have no ability to ``split their ticket'' and vote for a combination of shareholder and management nominees. This amendment would curtail the SEC's existing authority in this regard, to the detriment of shareholders and corporate accountability. I urge opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, the other side doesn't like ObamaCare; it doesn't like Dodd-Frank; it doesn't like the SEC. Maybe I am going to try an amendment on the bailout of the automobile industry to see if they like that one, because that helped a lot of folks. This amendment is misguided. The gentleman is a good man who honestly believes in what he is saying and in what he is doing, but it is only going to hamper the SEC's ability to do its work. We do that enough in this bill, so it should be left alone. I urge a vote against the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to start backwards here. We are not going to call for a vote on this, and the reason for it is, when people read your amendment, they are going to realize someone didn't write it correctly. It doesn't speak to the IRS. It actually allows for this cut to be across the board on the whole bill, which should make our chairman not very happy, and I am interested in my chairman's happiness. I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment would prevent agencies under this bill from giving employees in the Senior Executive Service bonuses. This seems to be aimed at the IRS since the summary on the Rules Committee Web site emphasizes the IRS, but it would have the same effect across the board. No one is saying that poor performance should be rewarded, but this takes one class of employees and punishes all of them regardless of their individual merits. It will cause us to lose good employees, which is not what we need. I realize Members on the other side of the aisle are eager to get their kicks in against the IRS--they even put them in bills when they are not the only ones in the bill--but I argue that this amendment would have unintended consequences. Rather than somehow making the IRS or any other agency better, this is likely to make it worse. This amendment is going to simply ensure that we have less accomplished employees at the IRS and at other government agencies. It would have a negative effect on recruitment and retention of highly talented senior executives necessary to ensure tax administration and other agency duties. It may also conflict with statutory requirements for SES bonuses that are designed to award strong performance. I oppose the amendment. It is not well targeted or well thought out. I think we also should know that this is the one agency that has been reduced in its employee number by the largest in the last few years, so I really don't understand what this is trying to accomplish. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. I think that if an-- Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I am asking the gentleman: Name me an agency here that should not be doling out--

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, and I am not answering the gentleman's question, my role is not to tell you what you should have put in the bill.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I will be brief. I don't want to read into the gentleman from Arizona's statement, sir, that you were trying to get the chairman not to notice that you were writing the amendment that he dislikes the most across the board-- that we both dislike the most. I just think, you know, what you are talking about is something that, in many cases, has to be looked at. Also, in order to keep good employees, you have to find ways to reward them. This agency, through the hits it takes, has lost--the one you intend, according to your comments, the IRS--has lost 18,000 employees in a couple of years since 2010, I believe, 18,000 employees. Now we go further here. Secondly, I am glad to see that you spoke about other agencies, which means you must have read the amendment a little closer. But I still think it is not a good amendment. I still think it should be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, this is one of those moments where you realize that an amendment is put forth not to deal with an issue but, rather, to put it on the floor so you can discuss it. First of all, this is not the place to discuss immigration policy. And I can tell you that we would both agree that our immigration policy, our program, is broken and it has to be fixed. Here is the problem, one that I have been arguing for years, and a lot of other people have been doing the same thing for years and lately, and that is that law enforcement officials, for the most part, will tell you that, regardless of whether we deal with the immigration issue or not, they need to speak to the local people and get information so they can do their job. If they are seen as agents of the immigration department, if you will, the people won't speak to them who are here undocumented. They won't speak to them. So they are faced with a very difficult situation. They are saying: You guys and ladies are supposed to handle immigration reform. Do it. Take care of it. Do it in the way you want. Take care of that. But in the meantime, let me do my job. So a guy steals a car, and three people in the neighborhood know who stole it. They go up. If they think that that police officer is also enforcing immigration policy, they are not going to talk to him. That is just a fact of life. So you may think you are doing a great thing, but you are actually hurting law enforcement in the job that it has to do. What we need to do is have an immigration policy that speaks about all the issues that are covered by immigration policy. Secondly, we hear from the other side about local control, local control, local control. Well, some cities have decided that they are sanctuary cities, that they are going to deal with the immigration issue differently than other people deal in other places--less mean, less aggressive and being nasty, more understanding of a problem rather than just saying that people come here to rip us off. We have to keep all those things in mind as we look at this amendment, and this amendment should be defeated. Lastly, your amendment talks about cutting funds, and the gentlewoman talked about cutting funds. To our knowledge, there is nothing in here that funds anything having to do with sanctuary cities or, for that matter, having to do with immigration. So wrong bill, wrong place, wrong time, wrong idea. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the CFPB from implementing, administering, or enforcing any guidance related to indirect auto lending. This is meant as a shot across the bow to the CFPB, telling them not to bring fair lending cases against indirect automobile finance companies. But on a practical level, the amendment will only invite confusion into the industry. After all, this amendment does nothing to address lenders' obligations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Instead, the amendment only strikes guidance the CFPB has provided to those lenders, providing clarity on how they can meet their obligations under the law. Discrimination in any finance market is unacceptable, and we know that discrimination is still alive and well in the indirect auto lending marketplace. In the three settlements to date against Ally Financial, Fifth Third Bank, Honda and Toyota Motor Credit, the CFPB secured nearly $162 million in borrower relief and penalties, finding that minority borrowers paid more than $200 over the life of a car loan than White borrowers, even when controlling for borrowers' creditworthiness. Discretionary markups are the source of discrimination in auto lending, and the guidance that this amendment nullifies helps lenders monitor and respond to potentially discriminatory auto lending practices. It is something that we should not be allowing, and this amendment tries to undo a lot of work that we are doing and a lot of work that should be done in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that there is a new bipartisanship here. I notice that this bill takes effect from now until January 21. So that means we will wait for Mrs. Clinton to become President before any new regulation would take effect. Secondly, the other side is always complaining about regulations. But every so often, we should step back and, instead of knocking our country so much, kind of pay attention to what some of those regulations have done. Sure, we have regulations. We have regulations about conditions in coal mines. Is that bad? We have regulations about the water we drink. Is that bad? We have regulations about the air we breathe. Those regulations make us different from other countries where there is no respect for the population and no protection. There is a regulation that says you have to go to school up to a certain age. That is great. There is a regulation that says no children can be working in factories or in the garment industry in New York. That is wonderful. So I am not afraid of regulations. Overregulating, okay, we can discuss that. But that side wants no regulation. It wants a computer to run the country. I keep claiming I want to see who is going to invent that computer. Here we go again, just talking about overregulating. There are questions. This provision, for instance, would also be in direct conflict with other statutory requirements. For example, EPA is required to finalize annual renewal fuel standards regulations by November 30 of each year. I am sure there are others. This is widely overbroad and can prevent significant regulatory actions in emergency situations, like disaster relief, where required by a court order, or when required by statute. For another example, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Trade Bureau, or TTB, in Treasury would not be able to publish implementing regulations relating to taxation of cider and removal of bond requirements for small beverage alcohol producers, and numerous other rules, such as a final rule reducing formula burdens on industry for specially denatured spirits and completely denatured alcohol, and the modernization of beverage alcohol. It is easy to say: no more regulations from October 1 to January 21. Let the next President deal with it. You are rolling the dice, assuming you think you know who is going to be President. But that is okay, I can roll along with you. The problem is that this is not the way to go. The dislike of the Obama administration by the other side is so evident, especially in amendments like this, where it is directed. At least, to your credit, you had the honesty in you to say the Obama administration. You called it by name, and I respect for you that. Other than that, I don't have a lot of respect for your amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?