José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

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

Mr. SERRANO. I rise in opposition to this amendment. It would prohibit the CPSC from taking action on the proposed rule on voluntary recall actions and voluntary recall notices. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in 2013. There has been no further official rulemaking action taken on it since then, so this amendment is not necessary. For that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to be funny here, but I am trying to figure out what political climate issues are. Maybe it is Democrats manipulate the weather so it only hurts certain people. I don't know what it means. Mr. Chairman, indeed, this amendment would prevent the SEC from enforcing or codifying into law its 2010 interpretive guidance to public companies intended to provide greater transparency to investors on the material risks--and opportunities--of those companies to climate change. This guidance was put forth after nearly 100 investors, representing $7 trillion in wealth management, specifically petitioned the SEC for this clarity. Additionally, the guidance doesn't create new climate change regulatory frameworks or mandates. Instead, it simply provides clarity on what companies should view as a ``material'' risk or opportunity that ought to be disclosed to investors. Given that Hurricane Sandy caused $70 billion in damage, it is difficult to say that climate change doesn't have an impact on business, unless you deny the existence of climate change in the first place. Democrats support efforts by the SEC to modernize public company disclosures so that investors are appropriately apprised of the material risks, including the risks of climate change. H.R. 4792, for example, represents a bicameral effort by Democrats to encourage the SEC to do more, not less, to ensure investors are aware of climate change risks like the effect of carbon costs on oil and gas companies. This amendment always runs counter to a recent decision by the SEC to require ExxonMobil to allow a shareholder proposal from the New York State Common Fund and the Church of England to come up for a vote on this issue. That proposal would require ExxonMobil to disclose to shareholders how climate change may impact their profits. Indeed, shareholders are increasingly craving this information. Since the beginning of 2016, eight shareholder proposals have gone to a vote at oil and gas and utility companies requesting increased disclosure of their plans to mitigate the impact from climate change on their operations. Average support for the proposal was 31 percent, but at Occidental Petroleum, nearly a majority of shareholders voted in favor. In comparison, in 2015, climate change-related proposals received an average of 17.5 percent support, with the highest support of 36.3 percent at Marathon Oil Corporation. If the SEC guidance on this was stronger, and if the SEC enforced this mandate, these shareholder proposals, which go further than voluntary disclosures, would not be necessary. As the impacts of climate change continue to be felt by individuals and businesses alike, shareholders will demand more information about the risks associated with their investments. The SEC should do more, not less, to clarify to companies the material risks they must disclose to their shareholders and owners. I urge opposition to this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I have been in public office for 42 years, 43 years, and only once in those years in the New York State Assembly and in Congress did an agency come before me and say: ``We don't want any more money. We have enough.'' That was the SEC in the old days, under another administration. They didn't want any more money, and I was shocked. No agency ever does that. Then, when Wall Street fell apart, we found out why. They didn't want any more money because they didn't want to enforce anything. The gentleman is right in that Madoff got away with a lot of stuff; but now, when we have an SEC that looks at things differently--that says that we should ask questions, that we should, for instance, tell shareholders what they are doing to mitigate the problems that they may face as shareholders--we want to stop them. We can't have it both ways. I agree with the gentleman in that Madoff and people like him got away with things, but not because this SEC, in these modern times, was looking the other way. It was because it was during a period of time when they didn't care, when they didn't enforce anything. A lot of people didn't enforce anything. I will give you an example which is related. To my understanding, not a single person from Wall Street went to prison. I don't know if that is possible anywhere else.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, if you listen to the last comment by the gentleman, for whom I have a lot of respect, this is really not about this particular situation. It is about the Iran deal. Anything to make it look bad--to make the agreement look bad, to make any future work on it look bad, to make any future vote on it look bad--some folks will do. What he says is not to allow any dollars to be appropriated by this committee to help in any way, shape, or form, or to get involved with the Iran deal. That is a situation we see a lot of on this committee, and it shouldn't be. It doesn't belong here. It belongs in another committee. If you are opposed to what the President has proposed--with what the President is trying to do and with what many of us believe is correct-- then we should work on that but not necessarily work on trying to cut funding and say that this particular part cannot be done and that that particular part cannot be done. It simply speaks to a larger issue, and I think we should be fair and honest with ourselves and say: I oppose this whole deal. I oppose this proposal. I oppose all of this, and I am simply trying to get at it in another way. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, in closing, it is interesting that he singles out this particular situation, because, if we were to look at every place to which we send any kind of armament that, maybe, some people would disagree with sending it to, we may not be selling anything to anyone throughout the world because there are plenty of people who oppose just about everything. I mean, we probably would only be sending stuff to the British and to no one else, perhaps, and everybody else would be in trouble. So that is not such a strong argument. The thing is that, if we start nitpicking--and I am not saying the gentleman is--this piece and that piece and that piece, then we could find so much that we can't send to Iran, and we will have no relationship at all. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do here is to establish some sort of understanding of who they are and an understanding of what their behavior is, but to still hope that, through conversation, though diplomacy, through other means, we can reach agreements that are good for us, good for them, and good for the world and world peace. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the same purpose as the amendment we just debated, that is, to undermine the Iran agreement and penalize American manufacturing companies. We have already gone over this, but it is worth repeating. The JCPOA closed the four pathways through which Iran could get to a nuclear weapon in less than a year. We do not gain anything by putting limitations on the United States' ability to engage or monitor Iran's compliance with the agreement. My objection to this amendment is the same objection I had to the last amendment: I see no need to proactively cut off domestic industry's access to a large market and, at the same time, undermine the commitment under the agreement regarding the exportation of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran. The financial mechanism for any transaction regarding U.S.- manufactured commercial aircraft has not yet been determined. Once the contracts are completed, Iran Air will decide how it wants to finance its purchases. Like the discussion on the gentleman's last amendment, all payment matters will be done in full compliance with U.S. sanctions. I understand that there is concern amongst some that the financing of any arrangement would be done through the Export-Import Bank of the United States. I would just note here that the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. is prohibited from providing financing to any Iranian airline. We should not be dictating the finance mechanisms for the purchase of American-made commercial aircraft, consistent with an international agreement and U.S. law and policy. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have repeated myself. So let me just say this: The amendment harms U.S. manufacturing jobs and ensures that U.S. companies will be locked out of a large aerospace market which is expected to grow for decades to come. Under this agreement, Iran is being subjected to the most comprehensive, intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. If Iran tries to cheat, if they try to build a bomb covertly, we will catch them. The President has repeatedly said that he will continue to take aggressive steps to counter any activities in violation of existing sanctions. There is no reason to believe that the next President will not do the same. I strongly oppose this harmful amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is about the Iran deal, and you could paint it any way you want. Anyone can say what they want about it, but it is about a deal that people would like to destroy. And so any opportunity we find, we do it. The charts that you showed are very good. The charts that the gentleman showed, Mr. Chair, are very good, are very strong, with a lot of information. But I am wondering, aren't those charts being shown to our military? Aren't those charts, in fact, being seen by our government? Isn't our President aware of whatever the gentleman claims? He makes it sound like it is a secret that somehow folks on the other side found out. Whatever is happening, if something is happening, our government, our military will react to it. He says to separate the Iran deal from what is going on. Well, separate the military from this President that the other side doesn't like. The military very carefully looks at this and advises the President. So, if something was going on that was out of order within the deal, they would tell him immediately. I know that, and I am confident of that. This, I repeat, is just one of the many ways that we will see, not only tonight and have seen today, but on many other bills and for as long as we can, to see if we can undo the Iran deal, just the same way some people are trying to undo some other deals that were put together recently by this President. 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, this amendment would put the United States in breach of its international legal obligations. It would also lead other countries to question U.S. integrity and reliability in entering into settlements and dispute resolution clauses in a wide range of treaties that directly affect our international economic interests, including treaties designed to protect U.S. investors abroad. Under the 1981 Algiers Accords, awards of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal are final and binding and enforceable in the courts around the country. If the U.S. does not pay, Iran will attempt to enforce the awards against U.S. assets around the world, which are significant. Even if not successful, Iran could tie up U.S. assets in litigation for years. In almost every administration, the United States has entered into settlements with Iran, including especially with respect to claims at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal. Settling certain cases with Iran is key to the U.S. ability to avoiding far greater liability where we believe the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal is likely to award a far larger award against the United States. The U.S. has settled certain cases or parts of cases in the past for this reason, including most recently the settlement in January involving the Iran FMS Trust Fund. In cases where the administration does not believe we have serious exposure, it litigates vigorously. In sum, this amendment would put the United States in breach of its international obligation, expose U.S. assets abroad to needless attachment litigation, and remove our ability to assess U.S. litigation risk regarding claims against the United States and prevent the United States from making important settlement decisions that are in the U.S. taxpayers' interest. For that reason, for trying not to expose our country to those problems, I urge opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman just proved to me what we already know, and that is that this is about feelings about the deal that we arranged some time ago. It is also an attempt to embarrass the people who put the deal together, embarrass our President, whatever the issue may be; but this one is a dangerous one, because this one exposes the United States to various situations throughout the world that we should not be caught up in. We have a reputation about paying our debts, about keeping to our treaties, about keeping to our arrangements, even with people we may not be crazy about. If that is what the idea is and that is what the deal is, we should live up to it, and this amendment goes against that. I still oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, it is the same thing. I am repeating myself over and over again. That is redundant. Anyway, it is just the same thing. It is that we are not happy with the Iran deal and want to try to find any way possible to undo it. There is enough support all around to at least try to reach a new day with the Government of Iran and try to find a way to have a better understanding. You know, I am a big supporter of this situation, and people have asked: Why? Simply because I have seen, I have been a Member of Congress during wartime, I have been alive during wartime, I have been alive during peacetime, both as a Member of Congress and out of Congress. I would rather give peace a chance. The Iran deal allows for that situation. Secondly, the Iran deal closed many of the pathways that Iran had to building a bomb within a year. And those are still there. The President, trust me--do I know this for a fact? Am I in the room there in the oval office? No--if there is one item the President does not want to fail, it is on this one. So there are people looking at this on a daily basis. Any chart we come up with, any photograph we come up with, they have it at the White House, I assure you, and they are dealing with this on a daily basis. So I understand the gentleman from New York, my colleague, has this amendment representing someone else, but he believes in it, and I respect him for that, but I think we should give this an opportunity to work. And if it doesn't work, the very people who supported it, I assure you, will be the first ones criticizing it and making sure that it gets undone or is done away with. But this needs a chance to work, and it is the best we can do. It is the responsibility we have to bring peace to future generations. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I did not have as illustrious a military career as he had, but in the sixties I was proud to serve our country. There is something that troubles me a lot, and I have to say it. There is always so much talk about our veterans, our veterans, our veterans, and yet, at the same time, people cut the Veterans Health Administration. At the same time, they try to take away preferences that they have gotten and they have earned the hard way. When we think of veterans, we shouldn't only think of that picture we always see of the person in uniform and so on. There is also the veteran in a wheelchair. There are the young kids that come here and greet us Monday nights sometimes, with a missing limb and so on. So, to me, I am either a contradiction or I am the way a lot of people should be. I will have to be really forced into voting for Congress to declare war. Given a choice, I don't want any war. But coming back from that war, I have become a big-spending liberal when it comes to veterans. Give them whatever they want. Give them whatever they need. Give them whatever they deserve. And I mean that sincerely. So this, to me, is an important amendment that the gentleman brings up. This, to me, is one that sticks to our comments that we care about the veterans. If we start chipping away at the benefits that veterans get, the day will come when we treat veterans just like any other Federal agency and cut away all their benefits and all the support that they need from us. So I strongly support this amendment, and I hope that everybody else will do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this is an ambiguous and punitive amendment which could prevent the Bureau from making seniors, servicemembers, and students aware of predatory financial practices, interrupt the Bureau's ability to work with consumer advocates and the financial services industry on consumer education, and keep American consumers in the dark about the only agency designed specifically to protect their interests. For every dollar spent on financial education, $25 is spent on financial marketing. You can see that for yourself by searching for a ``car loan'' or ``credit card offer'' on Google, or looking through the junk you get in your mailbox every week. In fact, marketing of these products has become so pervasive, Google recently banned advertising for payday loans on the basis they were harmful to Google's own customers. The Bureau has developed a number of tools that we should all be helping to make Americans more aware of, including a great set of resources on home ownership and mortgages called ``Know Before You Owe,'' as well as an online tool that arms consumers with the information they need to identify the most competitively priced loans in the marketplace. The Bureau has used Internet advertising, as well as TV advertising, through GSA-approved contractors that offer advertising management services to get the word out about these important resources that help consumers plan for their financial futures and save their hard-earned money. While Republicans claim to support transparency and competition in markets, they want to shut down the Bureau's efforts to educate consumers on how to get the best deals on financial services and avoid debt traps. At the same time, Republican allies have spent millions of dollars on Internet and television for a smear campaign cynically named ``Protect America's consumers,'' which has falsified quotes from Members of Congress and misrepresented Bureau activities to discourage taxpayers from taking advantage of the Bureau's services. One Sunlight Foundation analysis found that this bogus group spent $58,000 just on television advertisements smearing the Bureau. What real consumer nonprofits have that kind of money to throw around? Not anyone that I know. Fortunately, none of the Republican attacks have been able to keep the Bureau from returning $11.4 billion to consumers, or from providing financial advice to more than 12 million unique visitors to their Web site. We would, however, like to thank the Republicans for giving the Bureau some free advertising for those who are watching the debate. Make sure you visit consumerfinance.gov for more information on mortgages, student loans, credit cards, and banking accounts. And that is consumerfinance.gov, just in case anyone missed it. I urge opposition to the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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