[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 164 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8209-H8224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SEC DISCLOSURE EFFECTIVENESS TESTING ACT


                             General Leave

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
1815, and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cartwright). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 629 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1815.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1224


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1815) to require the Securities and Exchange Commission, when 
developing rules and regulations about disclosures to retail investors, 
to conduct investor testing, including a survey and interviews of 
retail investors, and for other purposes, with Mr. Langevin in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
in the first section of House Resolution 629 and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1815, the SEC Disclosure 
Effectiveness Testing Act crafted by Representative Casten from 
Illinois, a new Member of Congress and member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  H.R. 1815 requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to test its 
disclosure documents with retail investors through one-on-one 
interviews and surveys to ensure that these documents are actually 
understood by their target audience.
  The SEC's approach to protecting retail investors from conflicts of 
interest and other risks has been based on informing them through 
disclosure. This is a problem when those disclosures are written in a 
way that retail investors don't understand.
  Since at least 2012, when the SEC conducted a financial literacy 
study, we have known that many of the disclosures intended for retail 
investors are not well-understood by those investors.
  While the public has the opportunity to comment on most rulemakings 
or new disclosures, these comments are largely from well-funded 
industry representatives, rather than the mom-and-pop investors who 
will be receiving these new disclosures.
  H.R. 1815 ensures that the SEC gets the input it needs from retail 
investors on disclosure forms by requiring the SEC to test those forms 
and engage in qualitative one-on-one interviews and nationwide surveys.
  Investor testing has been embraced by both Democratic and Republican 
commissioners at the SEC. In addition, the SEC itself has been engaged 
in investor testing in several instances, including most recently in 
2018, when it tested a proposed disclosure for brokers and investment 
advisers to provide to retail investors known as Form Client 
Relationship Summary, that is, CRS.

  This proposed five-page disclosure was intended to help retail 
investors understand the obligations owed and services provided by 
investment professionals, as well as the fees and costs that could 
affect their investment accounts.
  To ensure that retail investors are able to use Form CRS as intended, 
the SEC conducted a nationwide online survey of 1,800 individuals and 
31 qualitative, in-depth interviews in Denver and Pittsburgh. The mixed 
results of the SEC's testing of Form CRS showed that changes and 
possibly more testing were necessary.
  Unfortunately, in that instance, the SEC did not engage in the 
robust, iterative investor testing that H.R. 1815 would require, and 
finalized a vague disclosure.
  H.R. 1815 would require the SEC to go back and review and test 
existing disclosures like Form CRS and determine whether changes should 
be made. This review of existing documents is particularly important as 
the capital markets, investor behaviors, and investing trends change.
  In addition to the SEC, other regulators like the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission also engage in 
usability testing of their disclosures.
  H.R. 1815 builds on the efforts of the SEC by requiring the 
Commission to engage in a similar iterative process for all existing or 
future disclosure, intended to help retail investors make informed 
investment decisions.
  I thank Representative Casten for putting forth this commonsense 
piece of legislation that will help investors make better informed 
financial decisions regarding their hard-earned earnings.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1815, the SEC Disclosure 
Effectiveness Testing Act of 2019.
  Mr. Chair, Democrats claim that this bill would ``build on efforts to 
engage in investor testing by requiring the SEC to conduct usability 
testing of any new disclosure.''
  If my friends on the other side really wanted to build on efforts to 
engage in investor testing, I believe they would have worked with 
Republicans on the committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission 
to craft a bill that would actually be signed into law. Unfortunately, 
this bill is a deliberate effort to not only delay the SEC's rulemaking 
on Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS, but it is also an effort to 
tie the SEC's hands with regard to future disclosure rulemakings and 
may have an effect even on past rulemakings.
  In fact, what the bill's author won't tell you is that the SEC 
already conducted investor testing on the very disclosure regulation 
Democrats are targeting with this particular bill. With Reg BI, 1,800 
Main Street investors nationwide were surveyed about the regulation. 
There were 31 one-on-one, in-depth interviews with retail investors. 
Seven roundtables were held that the SEC gained input from. Finally, 
more than 6,000 comment letters were received by the SEC before they 
actually put together the Reg BI.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission collected all this, analyzed 
the information from all of those sources, and very carefully crafted 
what had been very contentious and, frankly, outside the bounds of what 
had normally been accepted with Regulation Best Interest by having the 
Department of Labor try to drive this rather than the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. I believe that they have a good product.
  The SEC used this information to adopt a workable regulation all 
without the help--or the so-called help--of H.R. 1815. So what does the 
final rulemaking package on Reg BI and Form CRS accomplish?
  It raises the standard of care owed by broker-dealers to retail 
investors, and that, at the end of the day, is what this is all about. 
It is a standard that we agree needed to be addressed.
  But why make the SEC do it again and further delay a rulemaking that 
makes significant improvements for Main Street investors? It is a rule 
that is in place. I can only surmise it is because my friends on the 
other side didn't like the outcome and didn't like what they heard in 
that investor testing.
  Not only did they not like the current outcome for Reg BI and Form 
CRS, but my friends on the other side of the aisle want to tie the 
SEC's hands in future disclosure rulemaking. They accomplish this by 
requiring investor

[[Page H8210]]

testing for documents and information that are relied on or 
``substantially likely to be materially relied upon by retail 
investors.''
  Now, I don't know what that phrase means. Here is why I don't know 
what that phrase means: It is because it wasn't in the version of the 
bill reported out of the committee. That is a phrase thrown in at the 
last minute by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  If that weren't enough, the bill targets the SEC's previous 
disclosure rulemaking. H.R. 1815 requires the SEC to retroactively 
conduct investor testing on similar disclosure rulemakings that were 
finalized before enactment of this bill. This means disclosure rules 
finalized 5, 10, 15, maybe even 20 years ago could be captured and will 
be captured by this bill.
  Finally, if subjecting past and future disclosure rulemakings to 
investor testing weren't enough, the bill captures present rulemaking. 
H.R. 1815 creates a bureaucratic loop by requiring the SEC to conduct 
investor testing if substantive changes are made to a proposed 
rulemaking, and those changes are untested before the rules are 
finalized.
  What does this bill mean for everyday investors? It means more 
bureaucracy. It means less certainty. Certainly, it does not speed up 
what all agree is an issue that needs to be addressed. There is no 
doubt that investor testing is an effective tool for designing smart, 
workable regulatory frameworks to benefit the Main Street investor. It 
can help craft disclosures and information that everyday investors can 
actually understand and use. It does not have to come in the form of a 
mandate.
  This bill is not only a delay tactic, but it will drastically 
undermine the ability of the SEC to do its primary job of protecting 
investors.
  Under the last administration, that is all we heard about on the 
committee. I have been on the subcommittee that handles this, and all 
we heard was how Congress was undercutting the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, that it wasn't supporting it enough and wasn't allowing it 
to do its job.
  What are my friends now doing? The exact thing that they were 
complaining about.
  By delaying it or in some cases preventing the SEC from finalizing 
rules intended to protect investors and diverting resources from 
cybersecurity and enforcement actions, Main Street investors that this 
bill claims to serve will only be harmed.
  I am confident the SEC can and will devote the utmost attention and 
consideration to help everyday American investors without this 
particular bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Casten), who will correct all the misstatements that were 
just made by the gentleman from Michigan. Representative Casten is the 
sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 
1815, the SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act. I thank Chairwoman 
Waters and Subcommittee Chair Maloney for their leadership on the 
Financial Services Committee and their unwavering dedication to 
protecting investors.

  That is exactly what this bill does. It is a pro-investor bill that 
has one goal: that the SEC ensures disclosures made to retail investors 
are clear and concise so that Americans can make informed investment 
decisions.
  We are not here to relitigate the proper duty that brokers owe to 
investors. Instead, this bill is about making sure that disclosure 
documents convey information to investors effectively. We would never 
let companies post warning labels in ancient Greek, yet we too often 
allow disclosure documents--say, for conflicts of interest--to be 
written in jargon that is unintelligible to anyone without a law 
degree. Merely providing information to investors is not enough. We 
have also to make sure that information is understood.
  Whether it is buying a house, sending your kids to college, investing 
in your retirement, or just saving for a rainy day, the American Dream 
depends on our ability to invest in our future. This bill protects 
Americans by doing pretty basic market research to ensure that legally 
required disclosures can be understood by the average investor. 
Disclosures are already legally mandated to disclose information about 
fees, comparisons of investment advisory services, conflicts of 
interest, and much more, but just because those forms are provided to 
investors doesn't mean that investors understand them.
  As we all know, the biggest lie on the internet is that ``I have read 
and understand the terms and conditions.'' So we should not assume that 
just because an investor has been provided a disclosure agreement means 
that they understand it.
  Now, in point of fact, the RAND Corporation--this was what my 
colleague referred to--conducted this investor testing--we agree--with 
1,800 individuals, 31 qualitative, in-depth interviews. This is what 
they concluded: ``Nearly 90 percent of respondents opined that the 
relationship summary would help them make more informed decisions about 
investment accounts and services . . . but interview discussions 
revealed that there were areas of confusion for participants, including 
differences between types of accounts or financial professionals.''
  There were no changes made after that. Yes, they did the surveys, but 
many did not know and still do not know the difference between account 
types or financial professions. Others didn't appear to have 
synthesized the information in ways that they could apply it.
  In other words, consumers want these disclosures. Qualitative testing 
shows that what they are getting is not informing them properly, and 
that is why this bill is so important.
  The SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act would build on SEC's 
investor testing efforts and require the agency to engage in a robust 
iterative process for any existing or future disclosures intended to 
help retail investors make investment decisions.
  Specifically, the bill anticipates that the SEC will test those 
documents used by retail investors when selecting an investment 
professional to work with, assessing an investment recommendation, or 
deciding to purchase or sell a security. This would include testing of, 
for example, brokers' trade confirmation statements and investment 
advisers' brochures that detail business practices, fees, conflicts of 
interest, and disciplinary information.
  In short, if we are going to rely on disclosures, we need to make 
sure the disclosures work.
  We use market research to convey simple and important messages. Take 
an example: We don't put warnings on a box of cigarettes that says that 
in multiple peer-reviewed papers, scientists have found that prolonged 
exposure to cigarette smoke increases your risk to certain types of 
cancers, and those results are less than 5 percent likely to have been 
the result of sampling error.
  Nobody would understand that. We say, ``Smoking kills,'' because our 
job is to communicate. We would be delinquent if we weren't equally 
clear in this case.
  We are talking about disclosures like Form CRS that would require 
financial professionals to deliver to their retail customers a short 
and simple disclosure form to clarify the scope of their customers' 
relationship and companies who offer them financial services.
  A consumer disclosure has to do more than just protect the discloser. 
If an investor doesn't understand what is being disclosed, then we 
cannot say that anything was truly disclosed. We must make sure that 
investors know what is being disclosed, and that is what the bill does.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. This isn't a mandate on high to dictate to 
the SEC what the disclosures should say but rather says that it must do 
qualitative interviews to confirm that investors understand the 
disclosure. That is why the AARP has endorsed the bill, as well as the 
Financial Planning Coalition, the Consumer Federation of America, and 
the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards.
  This is a narrowly tailored bill that applies to a number of 
disclosure statements that Main Street retail investors rely on. It 
does not apply to disclosures that are relied on primarily by 
sophisticated institutional investors.

[[Page H8211]]

  When I was growing up, there was an ad on television for a discount 
menswear store called Syms. At the end of every commercial, their 
president, Sy Syms, would say, ``An educated consumer is our best 
customer.'' We owe nothing less to the American people, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), who is the vice ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the bill being 
discussed today. While I appreciate my good friend Mr. Casten's effort 
on the bill, the problem is in the details.

  While he clearly stated that this is a narrowly tailored bill, the 
reality is that a casual counting of SEC-promulgated rules yields over 
600 rules that this would apply to. At 6 months of testing each, that 
is over 300 years' worth of testing--300 years. Our Republic hasn't 
been in existence for 300 years.
  What I hear from Hoosiers back home is they are tired of our 
regulators being distracted and going back and looking at the history, 
and what they want to be focused on is how they protect investors going 
forward.
  As Mr. Casten and I have discussed before, I think we share those 
laudable aims about ensuring that disclosures truly convey the 
information we want them to convey, but this bill doesn't do that.
  This bill distracts the SEC from the necessary work on regulating our 
markets and protecting our investors by going back and doing hundreds 
of investor tests on over 600 different SEC-promulgated rules. Because 
of that, I will oppose the bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is the chairwoman for the 
Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital 
Markets.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the 
chairwoman for yielding and for her leadership on the committee.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly support H.R. 1815, which is just plain common 
sense, and I congratulate my colleague and friend for his leadership 
and hard work on this bill.
  We want investors to understand the disclosures that companies, 
brokers, and advisers are required to give them.
  What would be the point of requiring disclosures that the vast 
majority of investors don't even understand? If they don't understand 
the disclosures--or worse, if they haven't even read the disclosures--
then they are not making their investment decisions with all the 
information that they need.
  The best way to ensure that investors understand the disclosures is 
actually to engage in investor testing of proposed disclosure forms.

                              {time}  1245

  Disclosures that a sophisticated institutional investor might 
understand or that the experts on the SEC staff might understand might 
not be clear and understandable to the average retail investor.
  This isn't surprising. The SEC staff who designed these disclosures 
are typically lawyers and not disclosure design experts. That is why it 
is important to require the SEC to engage in investor testing of these 
disclosures. That way, they don't end up requiring a disclosure that 
simply does not work.
  Quite frankly, I don't understand why anyone would oppose this bill, 
because that would be the equivalent of saying that you don't want 
investors to understand the disclosures. And if you think the SEC has 
the authority to do investor testing, then why would you oppose simply 
codifying that authority? Other agencies have done effective usability 
testing for disclosures.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. The Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, under Director Cordray, engaged in extensive 
consumer testing of new disclosure forms that it was proposing for 
prepaid cards. It came up with two different proposed disclosure forms 
and then field-tested the two forms for months before finalizing the 
prepaid card rule. That is the kind of data-driven regulation that 
helps consumers, investors, and, ultimately, all market participants 
because it improves trust in the entire financial markets.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who has had extensive history and experience 
with this particular issue at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Huizenga) for yielding his time. He has been a terrific leader on 
capital markets and has been serving in his capacity as we try and work 
hard for that low- and middle-income investor, that Main Street 
investor who is so important that we finally get some regulation and 
some guidance in place that is going to make sure that they are getting 
the information that is going to help them make good investment and 
savings decisions that are truly in the best interest of that consumer. 
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital 
Markets, is absolutely right.
  Since my very first year in Congress 7 years ago, I have been 
fighting for that Main Street investor. I have been fighting to make 
sure that the best interest of that investor is in place.
  This is not about Wall Street; it is about Main Street. It is about 
taking care of the low- and middle-income consumer. And the SEC has 
been dealing with this fiduciary rule and with the best interest 
standard for years and years and years.
  Mr. Chairman, we have studied it. We have had countless comment 
periods. It has been litigated. The investor testing has been done. 
Years and years have gone into this moment where the SEC is finally 
ready and has, in fact, moved forward with the best interest standard.
  The difficulty with this piece of legislation, H.R. 1815, is it is, 
frankly, just a political ploy, Mr. Chairman, a political ploy that is 
an attempt to stop the rule in its tracks, one that is going to take 
care of those that need the kind of support from their broker-dealer 
the most.
  It is important that we finally have this issue back in the 
jurisdiction of the SEC where it belongs. It is time that this rule 
move forward and that we look out--all of us--for the best interest of 
our retail investors. Let's let this go forward and stop the political 
ploys.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters), the chairwoman, for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1815, which would simply require 
the SEC to conduct investor testing when developing rules and 
regulations about disclosures to retail investors.
  Creating effective disclosures is often a difficult task and requires 
developmental testing with consumers. It is a complex and technical 
task in its nature. These disclosures are meant to be clear and concise 
so that retail investors understand the scope of their relationships 
with brokers and investment advisers and important decisions regarding 
their investments.
  The SEC has had evidence since at least 2012, when it conducted a 
financial literacy study, that many of the disclosure documents that we 
currently rely on are not well understood by those investors. This 
includes cost disclosures that don't clearly convey costs, risk 
disclosures that don't clearly convey risks, and conflict disclosures 
that do not clearly convey the nature and the impact of these 
conflicts.
  Effective disclosure testing is imperative for facilitating informed 
decisionmaking on the part of consumers who are trying to save and 
invest their hard-earned money, and that is why the AARP and many other 
groups have endorsed H.R. 1815.
  By requiring qualitative testing in the form of one-on-one cognitive 
interviews of investors, it provides a deeper look into how typical 
retail investors synthesize information. If investors understand key 
differences in firms' conflicts, obligations, and revenue streams, then 
more retail investors will receive and interpret correctly the 
professional guidance that is right for them.

[[Page H8212]]

  The framework laid out here will increase transparency and access to 
critical and understandable information, as well as facilitate informed 
decisionmaking for Americans making investment decisions and saving for 
their retirement. This should be accomplished without delay.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1815.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the following 
letters:
  An October 16, 2019, letter from the SIFMA expressing support for 
both of my amendments that exempt Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS 
from the bill's requirements, and the gentlewoman from Missouri, Mrs. 
Wagner's amendment, which would make the bill effective beginning on 
January 21, 2021, and apply only to future rulemaking; an October 16, 
2019, letter from SIFMA opposing H.R. 1815; and also, an October 16, 
2019, letter to the Speaker of the House and Leader McCarthy from ACLI, 
FSI, IPA, IRI, ICI, NAIFA, SIFMA, and the Chamber of Commerce 
expressing concern with H.R. 1815 and the negative impact it would have 
on retail investors.
  As we are starting to have discussion on these particular amendments, 
I look forward to my friends across the aisle who are saying that the 
bill does not change any of the current situation, I look forward to 
them potentially supporting these amendments.

                                                        SIFMA,

                                                 October 16, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: The Securities 
     Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) 
     appreciates the opportunity to comment on two of the 
     amendments made in order by the Rules Committee to H.R. 1815, 
     the ``SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act.'' This 
     legislation would impose on the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission (``SEC'') an investor testing requirement for all 
     past and future regulations, with some exceptions, about 
     disclosure to retail investors.
       The amendment offered by Representative Huizenga would 
     exempt Form CRS from the bill's retroactive investor testing 
     requirements. In the development of the Regulation Best 
     Interest rulemaking package (commonly referred to as ``Reg 
     BI''), the SEC conducted extensive investor testing of Form 
     CRS. The SEC's testing involved both a comprehensive national 
     survey to collect information on the opinions, preferences, 
     attitudes, and level of self-assessed comprehension of the 
     Form CRS, as well as qualitative interviews to obtain further 
     insight into individuals' attitudes toward the Form CRS. We 
     support Rep. Huizenga's amendment, as further testing of Form 
     CRS would unduly interfere with and delay the implementation 
     process which is already well underway.
       Representative Wagner's amendment would apply the bill's 
     investor testing requirements only to applicable disclosure 
     documents developed after January 21, 2021. Based on our firm 
     belief in the heightened strength of the new Reg BI conduct 
     standards and their value to everyday investors, which have 
     been fully effective since September 10, 2019 with a 
     compliance date of June 30, 2020, SIFMA supports the Wagner 
     amendment. We believe the underlying legislation would 
     unnecessarily delay the implementation of a new set of 
     sweeping regulations that would provide strong investor and 
     consumer protections for 43 million households. SIFMA has 
     long supported enhancing the standard of conduct applicable 
     to broker-dealers when providing personalized investment 
     advice about securities to retail investors and we believe 
     the SEC has successfully accomplished this important goal 
     through Reg BI.
       SIFMA appreciates and shares the interest of Representative 
     Casten and the Committee on Financial Services in advocating 
     for robust investor testing of retail investor disclosures. 
     We agree that in many cases, investor testing is appropriate 
     and makes sense. We believe disclosures are designed to give 
     the investing public the information they need to make 
     informed financial decisions but could be held up in an 
     endless loop of repeated testing if the underlying bill is 
     enacted. SIFMA therefore supports the proposed amendments 
     made by Representatives Huizenga and Wagner, which improve 
     the legislation and offer a better approach to investor 
     testing.
       We appreciate the opportunity to comment and we appreciate 
     your consideration of our views. If you have any questions or 
     require any additional information, please feel free to 
     contact us.
           Sincerely,

                                      Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr.,

                              President & CEO, Securities Industry
     and Financial Markets Association.
                                  ____



                                                        SIFMA,

                                                 October 16, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: The Securities 
     Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) 
     appreciates the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1815, the 
     ``SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act.'' H.R. 1815 would 
     impose on the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') an 
     investor testing requirement for all past and future broker-
     dealer regulations, with some exceptions, about disclosure to 
     retail investors.
       SIFMA appreciates and shares the interest of Representative 
     Casten and the Committee on Financial Services in advocating 
     for robust investor testing of retail investor disclosures. 
     We agree that in many cases, investor testing is appropriate 
     and makes good common sense. In fact, the SEC conducted 
     extensive investor testing of the proposed Form CRS, an 
     important component of the Regulation Best Interest 
     rulemaking package (collectively, ``Reg BI'')--the most 
     comprehensive enhancement of standard of conduct rules 
     governing broker-dealers since the enactment of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC's testing involved 
     both a comprehensive national survey to collect information 
     on the opinions, preferences, attitudes, and level of self-
     assessed comprehension of the Form CRS, as well as 
     qualitative interviews to obtain further insights related to 
     the reasoning and beliefs behind individuals' attitudes 
     toward the Form CRS.
       Reg BI has been fully effective since September 10, 2019 
     and has a compliance date of June 30, 2020. Further testing 
     of Reg BI would unduly interfere with and delay the 
     implementation process which is already well underway. 
     Ultimately, the bill would divert valuable and limited 
     regulatory resources and thereby undermine the roll-out of a 
     significantly strengthened best interest standard of conduct 
     designed to better protect and serve retail investors.
       Over the past several months, the SEC and FINRA have been 
     working diligently to assist financial services firms in 
     answering Reg BI interpretive questions and developing Reg BI 
     compliance programs. Late last month, the SEC published a 
     small entity compliance guide to Reg BI. Just last week, 
     FINRA published a Reg BI compliance checklist and announced 
     additional resources to aid firms in compliance.
       Based on our firm belief in the heightened strength of the 
     new Reg BI conduct standards and their value to everyday 
     investors, SIFMA respectfully opposes H.R. 1815. We believe 
     the bill would likely unnecessarily delay the implementation 
     of historically new set of regulations that would provide 
     strong investor and consumer protections for forty-three 
     million households. SIFMA has long supported enhancing the 
     standard of conduct applicable to broker-dealers when 
     providing personalized investment advice about securities to 
     retail investors and we believe the SEC has succeed in 
     accomplishing this important goal through Reg BI.
       Further, enactment of the bill as written, despite the 
     carve outs listed in the manager's amendment, will subject 
     other rules that apply to broker dealers under the federal 
     securities laws to retroactive review and testing, including 
     Form ABD, Investment Company Act disclosures, Trust Indenture 
     Act disclosures, order routing, order execution, penny stock 
     disclosures and others. These disclosures are designed to 
     give the investing public the information they need to make 
     informed financial decisions, but could be held up in an 
     endless loop of repeated testing under the bill. While we 
     understand and appreciate that this was likely not the 
     Committee's intent or purpose, we believe that imposing such 
     a requirement would likely result in an unprecedented, 
     costly, resource intensive undertaking by the SEC.
       We appreciate the opportunity to comment and we appreciate 
     your consideration of our views. If you have any questions or 
     require any additional information, please feel free to 
     contact us.
           Sincerely,

                                      Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr.,

                              President & CEO, Securities Industry
     and Financial Markets Association.
                                  ____

                                                 October 16, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: The undersigned 
     associations, representing investment advisers, broker-dealer 
     firms, life insurers and their financial professionals as 
     well as registered investment companies, appreciate the 
     opportunity to comment on H.R. 1815, the ``SEC Disclosure 
     Effectiveness Testing Act,'' which would impose on the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC') an investor 
     testing requirement for all past and future regulations, with 
     some exceptions, about disclosure to retail investors.
       We appreciate and share the interest of Representative 
     Casten and the Committee on Financial Services in advocating 
     for robust investor testing of retail investor disclosures. 
     Retail investors should be provided clear and understandable 
     disclosures, and we agree that in many cases, investor 
     testing

[[Page H8213]]

     makes good common sense. However, we are concerned that this 
     legislation will have an immediate negative impact on retail 
     consumers as it would interfere with the implementation of 
     the Regulation Best Interest rulemaking package 
     (collectively, ``Reg BI'')--the most comprehensive 
     enhancement of standard of conduct rules governing broker-
     dealers since the enactment of the Securities Exchange Act of 
     1934. This result is nonsensical--as investor testing was 
     part of SEC's Reg. BI rulemaking promulgation. Specifically, 
     the SEC conducted extensive investor testing of the proposed 
     Form CRS, an important component of the Regulation Best 
     Interest rulemaking package. The SEC's testing involved both 
     a comprehensive national survey as well as qualitative 
     interviews with investors.
       Reg BI has been fully effective since September 10, 2019 
     and has a compliance date of June 30, 2020. Financial 
     services firms have spent months developing Reg BI compliance 
     programs, and further testing of Reg BI would unduly 
     interfere with and delay this ongoing implementation process. 
     Based on our firm belief in the heightened strength of the 
     Reg BI conduct standards that will better protect forty-three 
     million households, we respectfully oppose H.R. 1815.
       Further, despite the carve outs in the manager's amendment, 
     enactment of the bill as written will subject other rules 
     regarding disclosure to retail investors to retroactive 
     review and testing. These rules include, among others, retail 
     disclosure requirements that are designed to give consumers 
     the information they need to make informed investing 
     decisions. Under H.R. 1815, however, these existing rules 
     could be held up in an endlessly iterative loop of repeated 
     testing.
       In addition, with respect to future rulemakings, the SEC is 
     well-positioned to determine the most efficient way to test 
     and support their disclosure related rulemakings. The SEC 
     conducting investor testing may or may not be appropriate, 
     depending on the rulemaking. For each rulemaking, however, 
     the SEC already is required to seek public comment; the 
     comment period is intended to get public input, including 
     from investors and entities that represent investors and 
     entities that regularly engage with investors. In this way, 
     the SEC is able to get real insights into what may or may not 
     work well for investors. H.R. 1815 may impede rulemakings 
     intended to provide valuable information to investors, a cost 
     that exceeds its possible benefits.
       We appreciate the opportunity to comment and your 
     consideration of our views. If you have any questions or 
     require any additional information, please feel free to 
     contact us.
           Sincerely,
     American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI).
     Financial Services Institute, Inc. (FSI).
     Institute for Portfolio Alternatives (IPA).
     Insured Retirement Institute (IRI).
     Investment Company Institute (ICI).
     National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors 
     (NAIFA).
     Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association 
     (SIFMA).
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1815 is a commonsense bill that is supported by 
our Nation's seniors, investment advisers, and investor advocates. Here 
is what they have said about the bill:
  According to AARP, they wrote: ``AARP, on behalf of our nearly 38 
million members and all older Americans nationwide, is pleased to 
endorse H.R. 1815, which would require the Securities and Exchange 
Commission to conduct investor testing when developing rules and 
regulations about disclosures to retail investors. Robust investor 
testing of retail investor disclosures will assist investors in getting 
the information they need to make informed choices about their hard-
earned savings.''
  According to the Financial Planning Coalition: ``The coalition 
believes that H.R. 1815 would provide the statutory framework necessary 
for the SEC to ensure to Congress and Main Street investors that 
disclosures required under SEC rules have been thoroughly and 
adequately tested by the SEC and are reasonably effective in achieving 
their intended purpose.''
  According to the Consumer Federation of America: ``Disclosure is both 
an important investor protection tool and a regulatory requirement that 
imposes significant cost on industry. We, therefore, have an obligation 
to make those disclosures as effective as possible. H.R. 1815 would 
help to achieve that goal by updating the SEC's approach to disclosure 
development. Anyone who supports commonsense, evidence-based regulation 
should support this legislation.''
  Mr. Chair, before reserving the balance of my time, I include in the 
Record correspondence from the Financial Planning Coalition, the AARP, 
and the CFA, that is the Consumer Federation of America.

                                 Financial Planning Coalition,

                                                 October 11, 2019.
     Re Support for H.R. 1815, the ``SEC Disclosure Effectiveness 
         Testing Act''.

       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the Financial 
     Planning Coalition (Coalition), we are writing to express our 
     strong support for H.R. 1815, the ``SEC Disclosure 
     Effectiveness Testing Act.'' We encourage you to support the 
     legislation when it is considered on the House floor in the 
     coming week.
       A fundamental public policy goal of the federal securities 
     laws is to ensure full and adequate disclosure of 
     ``material'' information to American investors. The 
     expectation is that the disclosure will assist investors in 
     making an informed investment decision. Given this, we 
     appreciate the work the U.S. Securities and Exchange 
     Commission's (SEC) Office of the Investor Advocate has done 
     to identify and confront the challenges to improve investor 
     disclosure.
       Research conducted on behalf of AARP, Consumer Federation 
     of America and the Coalition organizations, as well as 
     separate research conducted by the SEC, all highlight the 
     challenges and difficulties in developing clear, 
     understandable investor disclosures. Information about 
     financial issues and investments is often complex and 
     technical in nature, and investor comprehension of this 
     information typically is poor. All too often, mandated 
     disclosures contain technical language and concepts that, as 
     research confirms, are confusing to or misunderstood by 
     investors. Indeed, research studies prove time and again how 
     difficult it is to convey even the most basic financial and 
     investment concepts in a way that typical Main Street 
     investors understand.
       To determine whether proposed investor disclosures would be 
     effective at achieving their regulatory purpose of informing 
     investor decision-making, it is not enough simply to survey 
     investors generally on their likes or preferences. Thorough 
     and adequate investor testing must go beyond that and, more 
     importantly, must assess investors' ability to integrate 
     information and synthesize it into a rational evaluation. 
     This involves a more complex and higher-level cognitive 
     skill. Conducting thorough one-on-one cognitive testing is 
     the only proven way to determine whether a proposed 
     disclosure document will achieve its intended purpose.
       For these reasons, we are particularly pleased that the 
     proposed legislation includes a requirement for qualitative 
     testing in the form of one-on-one cognitive interviews of 
     investors. A deeper look into the way investors analyze and 
     synthesize information is necessary to determine the 
     usefulness and effectiveness of any disclosure document in an 
     investor's decision-making process.
       The Coalition believes that H.R. 1815 will provide the 
     statutory framework necessary for the SEC to ensure to 
     Congress and Main Street investors that disclosures required 
     under SEC rules have been thoroughly and adequately tested by 
     the SEC and are reasonably effective in achieving their 
     intended purpose. The legislation to be considered on the 
     House floor appropriately clarifies that the scope of testing 
     is limited to those disclosures that are intended to be used 
     by retail investors in choosing a financial professional or 
     investment product. The modified legislation to be considered 
     on the House floor makes additional important clarifications 
     that the Coalition supports.
       We urge a ``Yes'' vote when the legislation comes up for a 
     vote on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
     Kevin R. Keller, CAE,
       Chief Executive Officer, CFP Board.
     Lauren Schadle, CAE,
       Executive Director/CEO, FPATM.
     Geoffrey Brown, CAE,
       Chief Executive Officer, NAPFA.
                                  ____



                                                AARP

                                 Washington, DC, October 16, 2019.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Waters: AARP, on behalf of our nearly 38 
     million members and all older Americans nationwide, is 
     pleased to endorse H.R. 1815, which would require the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct investor 
     testing when developing rules and regulations about 
     disclosures to retail investors. Robust investor testing of 
     retail investor disclosures will assist investors in getting 
     the information they need to make informed choices about 
     their hard-earned savings.
       AARP has a long history of fighting for investor 
     protections and is especially eager to provide clarity and 
     transparency to the often confusing and overly complicated 
     investment world. AARP has experienced firsthand the value of 
     investor testing to provide individuals with meaningful 
     information needed for financial decision-making. In response 
     to the SEC's proposed Client Relationship Summary (CRS) 
     disclosure forms, AARP commissioned two, independent rounds 
     of research

[[Page H8214]]

     and testing to gauge retail investor understanding. The 
     findings provided valuable information that helped guide our 
     recommendations for design and content modifications to 
     improve consumer understanding. AARP believes that such 
     retail testing should be utilized extensively by the SEC for 
     the development of effective, consumer facing disclosures.
       AARP appreciates that creating effective disclosure is 
     often a difficult and daunting task. We also understand that 
     the price of ineffective disclosures can be poor investment 
     decisions and inadequate levels of retirement savings. We 
     believe testing is imperative for facilitating informed 
     decision-making on the part of consumers trying to save and 
     invest their hard-earned money.
       We look forward to working with you and your colleagues to 
     increase transparency and access to critical and 
     understandable information, as well as facilitate informed 
     decisionmaking for older Americans making investment 
     decisions and saving for their retirement. If you have any 
     questions, please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Bill Sweeney,

     Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                   Consumer Federation of America.
       Dear Representative: We understand that H.R. 1815, the SEC 
     Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act, will soon be brought to 
     the House floor for a vote. We are writing to urge you to 
     vote yes on this pro-investor bill, which would help to 
     ensure that the disclosures retail investors rely on convey 
     as effectively as possible the key information needed to make 
     an informed choice about decisions that are critical to their 
     financial wellbeing.
       The sad reality is that the disclosures investors receive 
     when choosing investment professionals or evaluating 
     investment options often do a poor job of conveying 
     critically important information in a way that typical retail 
     investors can understand. This includes cost disclosures that 
     don't clearly convey costs, risk disclosures that don't 
     clearly convey risks, and conflict of interest disclosure 
     that do not clearly convey the nature or impact of those 
     conflicts. Evidence of this can be found, for example, in a 
     2018 SEC proposal to create a summary prospectus for variable 
     products that, while sound in concept, is long, dense, poorly 
     organized, and full of technical jargon.
       As a result, retail investors, and particularly the least 
     sophisticated retail investors, are too often flying blind 
     when making investment decisions that will affect their 
     ability to afford a secure and independent retirement or fund 
     other long-term financial goals. There are several reasons 
     for this. One is the inherent difficulty of the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission's task of developing clear 
     disclosures of complex topics for a non-expert retail 
     audience. But the other is the SEC's failure to adopt best 
     practices widely used by industry and some other government 
     agencies to develop more effective disclosures, including 
     incorporating qualitative testing of disclosure effectiveness 
     early in the development process.
       This bill would help to correct the second of these two 
     problems. It would do so, first, by requiring the SEC to 
     incorporate qualitative disclosure effectiveness testing in 
     the development of new disclosures designed for retail 
     investors. Importantly findings of the testing would have to 
     be made available for public comment. This would both hold 
     the SEC accountable for addressing those findings in any 
     rulemaking subject to the testing requirement and provide all 
     stakeholders with an opportunity to weigh in.
       Second, the bill would require the SEC, with input from the 
     Office of Investor Advocate, to develop a plan for testing 
     existing retail disclosures, without imposing a rigid 
     timeframe for completing that review. Appropriately, 
     disclosures primarily relied on by institutional investors, 
     analysts, and other sophisticated market participants would 
     not be subject to the testing requirement. This, along with 
     the involvement of the Office of Investor Advocate in 
     determining which existing disclosures are priorities for 
     testing, would help to ensure resources are devoted to 
     testing the disclosures most important for retail investors.
       Disclosure is both an important investor protection tool 
     and a regulatory requirement that imposes significant costs 
     on industry. We, therefore, have an obligation to make those 
     disclosures as effective as possible. H.R. 1815 would help to 
     achieve that goal by updating the SEC's approach to 
     disclosure development. Anyone who supports common sense, 
     evidence-based regulation should support this legislation.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Barbara Roper,
       Director of Investor Protection.
     Micah Hauptman,
       Financial Services Counsel.

  Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
each side and whether the gentlewoman is prepared to close at this 
time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentlewoman from California has 14 minutes remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I do want to point out that as the gentlewoman from 
Missouri and I were chatting a little bit about this, it is amazing, 
when this issue came to a head at the end of the Obama administration, 
there was a massive move away from the Securities and Exchange 
Commission where this Reg Best Interest traditionally has been the 
domain of such regulation and was moved over to the Department of 
Labor.
  Why? Because the administration believed they needed to move so 
quickly and they couldn't get the Securities and Exchange Commission to 
act and agree--parenthetically, agree--with them as to what it should 
look like, they kicked it over to the Department of Labor, which has a 
small little silver of oversight of this area because of pensions. But, 
nonetheless, they came up with a wholly unsatisfactory rule that caused 
a tremendous amount of confusion. The Securities and Exchange 
Commission put itself forward and said: No, we need to get this done.
  That is what kicked off all of the roundtables and the interviews and 
the 1,800 surveys and the 6,000 comment letters. We are now at this 
point where we can deliver on much-needed reform, and my colleagues 
across the aisle want to kick it backwards.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, you heard the author say that they are not 
interested in relitigating current rulemaking, so I look forward to 
them all supporting my amendment that we are going to be talking about. 
And let's exempt Form CRS and the Reg BI. But I am afraid, Mr. Chair, 
that is not their goal and intent. I am afraid that they don't like the 
policy; therefore, they want to go back in and delay.
  When the gentleman was talking about how there was no changes because 
of this, that is simply not true. The Form CRS went from four pages 
down to two pages, with significant, simplified changes that were 
inserted into that.
  And so that is the goal and objective at the end of the day, Mr. 
Chairman: to protect investors, to give them certainty and clarity; to 
give those who provide the advice to them certainty and clarity; and, 
frankly, to move forward.
  I am afraid that H.R. 1815 here does the exact opposite. It is going 
to delay it. It is going to make it even more murky than what it had 
been previously.
  I just want to urge my colleagues to think this through, what they 
are proposing to do to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 
power of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  And again, my first term was spent listening to how the Republicans 
``were trying to destroy the Securities Exchange Commission'' by not 
funding them enough, by not allowing them to do their job, by not 
having the appointees do what their backgrounds and expertise would 
allow them to do. I never bought that charge, Mr. Chairman, because it 
simply wasn't true.
  But we can see clearly, right now, this is a delaying tactic by the 
opposition; and how we would put not just current rulemaking, not just 
future rulemaking, but even past rulemaking back into this system would 
simply be a huge mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am a bit surprised at this 
opposition. I am a bit surprised at this opposition because, first of 
all, everyone must understand that the SEC is our cop on the block. 
This agency has, as its basic mission, to protect investors.
  Who best to be protected than the small, retail investors? We have so 
many schemes, so much fraud that we witness every day that is being 
brought forth to basically take advantage of the most vulnerable people 
in our society, many of them who don't have a lot of resources, who 
don't have money that they could lose. So, we believe that they must 
understand in what they are investing.
  This is not about the big, institutional investors. This is about 
your retail investors. This is about the little

[[Page H8215]]

guy. This is about those people who are depending on the information 
that they get and their investment advisers to help guide them so they 
can have enough money in retirement, for example.
  Why is it we would have any elected official coming to represent the 
people from their districts who would be opposed to making sure that 
these small investors are represented, that they are protected, that 
they are cared about?
  So, I am surprised at this opposition, and I don't know why there 
would be so much time spent saying that the SEC does not need to do 
additional kinds of testing, that they don't need to be concerned about 
these disclosures.
  What is it you need to protect about the SEC from doing its basic 
job? I don't understand that.
  But, however, let me just say that H.R. 1815 is a commonsense bill 
that benefits mom-and-pop investors by putting a process in place to 
ensure that the SEC's disclosures are clear and comprehensible for 
those investors.
  A disclosure is only useful if it can be understood by its audience, 
and this legislation ensures that disclosures are tested in a robust 
way so that they are clear.
  This bill is supported, again, by groups such as the AARP, our 
seniors; the Financial Planning Coalition; and the Consumer Federation 
of America, looking out for consumers.
  I, again, commend Representative Casten for putting forth this 
important legislation, and I thank him for his work. But, more than 
that, I thank him as a new Member of Congress who understands that his 
job, his responsibility, is to look out for his constituents and for 
the small investors, the little people, those people who need some 
protection, those people who don't need to be ripped off, those people 
who need to have clear information and disclosure about what they are 
getting into.
  I thank Representative Casten for his vision, for his foresight, and 
for understanding the responsibility of the SEC.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Financial Services, printed in the bill, an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 116-34 modified by the amendment printed in part A of House 
Report 116-237, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
shall be considered as the original bill and shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1815

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``SEC Disclosure Effectiveness 
     Testing Act''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE TESTING.

       (a) In General.--Section 23(a) of the Securities Exchange 
     Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78w(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(4) Investor testing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall engage in investor 
     testing prior to issuing any rule or regulation which 
     designates documents or information to be disclosed under the 
     securities laws, if such documents or information are 
     required to be delivered to, and are intended or 
     substantially likely to be materially relied upon by, a 
     retail investor when--
       ``(i) selecting a broker-dealer or investment adviser, 
     evaluating their services and fees, or materially altering a 
     brokerage or advisory relationship;
       ``(ii) assessing a securities recommendation or investment 
     advice provided by a broker- dealer or investment adviser;
       ``(iii) making a decision to purchase or sell a security; 
     or
       ``(iv) such other circumstances as the Commission may, with 
     input from the Investor Advocate, determine appropriate for 
     the protection of retail investors.
       ``(B) Exemption for certain disclosures.--This section 
     shall not apply to--
       ``(i) disclosures made pursuant to Regulations S-K and S-X 
     (including Industry Guides), Regulation 14A, Form N-PX, Form 
     10-K, Form 10-Q, Form 8-K, Form SD, Form N-PORT, Form PF, 
     Regulation SBSR, disclosures mandated by or jointly with the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the 
     Financial Stability Oversight Council, or successors thereto; 
     or
       ``(ii) any other documents or information that the 
     Commission, with input from the Investor Advocate, determines 
     are outside the intended scope and purposes of this Act.
       ``(C) Commission authority to conduct additional testing.--
     This section shall not be construed to limit the Commission's 
     ability to conduct any investor testing on any other 
     documents or information not subject to this section 23(a), 
     provided that any such investor testing shall not be subject 
     to the requirements of this section 23(a).
       ``(D) Contents.--Investor testing conducted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
       ``(i) Qualitative testing in the form of one-on-one 
     cognitive interviews of retail investors about documents or 
     information, or samples of such documents or information, to 
     be provided.
       ``(ii) Such other forms of testing that the Commission, 
     with input from the Investor Advocate, deems appropriate for 
     evaluating the effectiveness of retail disclosures.
       ``(iii) Analysis and publication in the Federal Register of 
     the results of the testing.
       ``(iv) An opportunity for the public to comment on such 
     results published in the Federal Register.
       ``(E) Substantive changes.--If the Commission, in the 
     period between engaging in investor testing and publishing a 
     final rule, makes substantive changes to such rule that the 
     Commission determines would have a significant impact on 
     retail investors, and such changes were not already investor 
     tested, the Commission shall again engage in investor testing 
     related to such changes.
       ``(F) Public availability of retail testing results.--The 
     Commission shall make the data and results of any investor 
     testing performed pursuant to this paragraph available to the 
     public.
       ``(G) Rules of construction.--
       ``(i) The determination that some or all of a document or 
     information is deemed to be subject to this paragraph shall 
     not forestall the determination that such document or 
     information may also be used or relied upon by the public, 
     market participants other than retail investors, or 
     government agencies.
       ``(ii) The Commission may, in consultation with the 
     Investor Advocate, determine which, if any, components of 
     such document or information are substantially likely to be 
     relied on by retail investors for the purposes outlined in 
     paragraph (4)(A) above and focus testing under this paragraph 
     on those components of the disclosure.
       ``(iii) Notwithstanding clause (ii) above, where any 
     information subject to testing under this paragraph may be 
     used or relied upon by the public, market participants other 
     than retail investors, or government agencies, the results of 
     testing made pursuant to this paragraph shall not provide 
     grounds for reducing or eliminating (including any 
     undermining of reliability of and accountability for) the 
     information that existing or proposed regulation requires or 
     would require be made available to the public, market 
     participants other than retail investors, and government 
     agencies, whether or not such information is delivered to 
     retail investors.''.
       (b) Participation of Investor Advocate.--Section 4(g) of 
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78d(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ``and'' at the 
     end;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following: "(E) 
     engage in investor testing--
       ``(i) to carry out the functions of the Office; and
       ``(ii) pursuant to section 23(a)(4), as appropriate; and'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Publication of data and results of investor 
     testing.--With respect to any investor testing carried out by 
     the Investor Advocate pursuant to paragraph (4)(E), the 
     Investor Advocate may make the data and results of such 
     investor testing available to the public, without further 
     review or editing by the Commission.
       ``(10) Personnel.--If the Investor Advocate decides, within 
     its sole discretion, to conduct testing under this Section, 
     the Investor Advocate may do so and the Commission shall 
     provide the Office of the Investor Advocate with sufficient 
     personnel and funding necessary to carry out such testing. 
     Such testing may qualify as the testing covered by this 
     section, provided that all requirements of the section are 
     met.''.
       (c) Prior Rules.--
       (1) In general.--For any final rule or regulation issued by 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission (in this subsection 
     referred to as the ``Commission'') before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act that would be subject to investor 
     testing under section 23(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934, had such rule been issued on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall perform investor 
     testing with respect to such rule or regulation that includes 
     the contents described in such section 23(a)(4).
       (2) Schedule.--The Commission shall, not later than 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, with 
     input from the Investor Advocate, establish a schedule for 
     completing any investor testing required under paragraph (1) 
     that prioritizes testing of any final rules and regulations 
     that designate documents or information central to retail 
     investor decision making, and in particular prioritize the 
     testing of documents or information required to be delivered 
     to retail investors in the form of summary documents or 
     summary sections of documents including for the purpose of 
     determining whether and how such summary documents can 
     achieve the goals of informed investor decision-making in the 
     circumstances set forth in Section 23(a)(4) of the Securities 
     6 Exchange Act of 1934


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  October 17, 2019, on page H8215, the following appeared: set 
forth in Section 23(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: set forth in 
Section 23(a)(4) of the Securities 6 Exchange Act of 1934


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


[[Page H8216]]

above while maintaining full accessibility by retail investors, the 
public, other market participants, and government regulators to the 
full range of documents and information that they may utilize or rely 
on, whether or not such documents or information are required to be 
delivered to retail investors.
       (3) Report.--The Commission shall, with input from the 
     Investor Advocate, issue a report to Congress each year 
     containing the following:
       (A) The status of any investor testing required under 
     paragraph (1) initiated within the last year or otherwise 
     ongoing.
       (B) The results of any investor testing completed under 
     paragraph (1) within the last year.
       (C) Any priorities the Commission has, based on results of 
     investor testing required by paragraph (1), for--
       (i) revising any proposed or final rule or regulation based 
     on the results of testing pursuant to;
       (ii) initiating any rulemaking or actions to arising from 
     the results of the testing pursuant to; and
       (iii) the Investor Advocate's views on the above priorities 
     and any such other matters arising from the testing or 
     results of testing pursuant to.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  October 17, 2019, on page H8216, the following appeared: (i) 
revising any proposed or final rule or regulation based on the 
results of testing pursuant to this paragraph; (ii) initiating any 
rulemaking or actions to arising from the results of the testing 
pursuant to this paragraph; and (iii) the Investor Advocate's 
views on the above priorities and any such other matters arising 
from the testing or results of testing pursuant to this paragraph.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: (i) revising any 
proposed or final rule or regulation based on the results of 
testing pursuant to; (ii) initiating any rulemaking or actions to 
arising from the results of the testing pursuant to; and (iii) the 
Investor Advocate's views on the above priorities and any such 
other matters arising from the testing or results of testing 
pursuant to.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part B of House Report 116-237. Each such 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Huizenga

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-237.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 17, after ``Guides),'' insert the following: 
     ``Form CRS''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 629, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would add 
Form CRS to the list of exempted disclosures that would not require SEC 
investor testing. They have gone through it.
  Now, you just heard one of my colleagues talk about why somebody 
would oppose this. I can tell you why somebody would oppose this: 
Because we have been doing it for 7 years.
  For 7 years Reg BI has been debated. It has been litigated. It has 
been confusing. And it is time to move forward.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission has done that.
  So, again, the author of the bill earlier had said, Mr. Chair, that 
he was not interested in relitigating current rulemaking. Now is the 
time to show that. Now is the time to prove that. Support my amendment.
  So, Form CRS was part of the Regulation Best Interest rulemaking 
package. The form is a short, plain-language description of an 
investor-adviser or a broker-dealer's relationship summary.
  It is designed to help retail investors select or determine to remain 
with an advisory or brokerage firm. They are trying to figure it out.
  Importantly, Form CRS was the result of an extensive deliberative 
process at the SEC. Beyond the typical comment process--and the SEC did 
consider 6,000 comments for the Reg BI rulemaking package--the SEC also 
engaged in substantial investor outreach, including in-person meetings 
across the country; surveys--1,800 of those surveys--and, importantly, 
engaged the RAND Corporation to perform one-on-one, in-depth investor 
testing of the proposed Form CRS.
  Now, earlier it was claimed, Mr. Chair, that the initial form was 
unchanged. That is not true. The SEC did figure out that four pages was 
too long, too confusing. They streamlined that down to two.
  So, that is, the SEC did its work--again, for the last 7 years. And 
we are now at a critical juncture. We can choose to take this road, or 
we can choose to turn around and head backward. I, for one, do not want 
to turn around and head backward. I want to provide that protection to 
my Main Street investors and my constituents back in my district.
  So, the SEC did its job. It did testing that was substantially 
similar to what was proposed by this bill on Form CRS already. It has 
been 7 years that we have been going through this process. We could not 
get, under the last administration and in the beginning of this 
administration, the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission to agree on how to move forward.
  And when in the Trump administration, this current administration, 
the Department of Labor was trying to assert itself, the Securities and 
Exchange Commission did its job and stepped in, which it didn't do 
under the last administration, and said: Nope. We got it. We are the 
lead agency. We will take this, and we will come up with a final 
product.
  And the reason why I oppose this bill, certainly without my 
amendment, is all this does is it reverts back to what we had before 
this rulemaking was done by the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
Confusion, muddiness, and uncertainty will be the rule of law, and we 
are trying to clear that up. The Securities and Exchange Commission is 
trying to clear that up.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, this amendment is unnecessary and could 
undermine the investor understanding of how retail investors relate to 
brokers.
  H.R. 1815, the SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act, simply 
requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to test its documents 
with retail investors through one-on-one interviews and surveys to 
ensure that disclosure documents intended for retail investors are 
actually understood by their target audience.
  H.R. 1815 is in no way intended to repeal Regulation Best Interest, a 
rule adopted by the SEC in June to change the standard of conduct for 
brokers when providing retail investors with personalized investment 
advice.
  And, to be clear, the bill does not require testing of the standard 
imposed by the SEC under Regulation Best Interest. Instead, it requires 
testing of how well retail investors understand the standard and how it 
impacts the advice they receive, along with any other disclosures.
  In addition, the bill contemplates that the SEC, in consultation with 
the investor advocate, would develop a schedule of disclosures that it 
intends to test and report to Congress. There is nothing in the bill 
that requires investor testing of disclosures related to Regulation 
Best Interest on day one of enactment.

  But this amendment would say that the SEC should never test these 
disclosures, regardless of changes to the markets, investment product 
offerings, investor behaviors, and investment trends. This makes little 
sense, particularly considering the rise of riskier products like 
cryptocurrencies that are being targeted to retail investors.
  I would also point out that, to the extent that the SEC, in 
consultation with the investor advocate, determines that it should make 
substantial changes to the disclosures that would have a significant 
impact on retail investors, H.R. 1815 would simply require the SEC to 
test new and existing disclosure forms to ensure that they are actually 
understood by the intended audience.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, I ask all of my colleagues to do 
so, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, just to address a couple of things: This 
bill clearly says it will add Form CRS to the list of exempted 
disclosures that would not require SEC investor testing. It has nothing 
to do with cryptocurrencies unless, somehow, magically, a crypto broker 
appears.
  There is no such thing. It has no application. This amendment is only 
going to be narrow. It is going to exempt Form CRS from having to go 
through this again.
  The author of the bill had said that he had no interest in 
relitigating current rulemaking. Here is the opportunity to prove it 
because, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would all agree that Form 
CRS does not need to be subject to further testing.

[[Page H8217]]

  It has been 7 years. I don't want it to be another 7 years. As my 
colleague from Indiana earlier was saying, 600 rules at 6 months per 
rule is 300 years. We don't have that time.
  Mr. Chair, I hope that my colleagues would support my amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time I 
have remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), the sponsor of this important 
legislation.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Huizenga amendment, and I want to clarify a couple of points.
  The bill gives the SEC Office of the Investor Advocate a larger role 
to prioritize which disclosures to test. The bill also says that once 
testing is completed and is found to be clear, there is no need to do 
further testing unless there are substantive changes.
  To argue that every single bill is going to have to be reviewed every 
single time is not an argument that is made in good faith. The question 
here on the amendment is simply: Should we exempt one single form from 
the broad discretion given to the SEC in this rule? It is not clear to 
me why you would exempt Form CRS from investor testing, unless you 
don't want investors to understand the fees, costs, or conflicts of 
interest of investment professionals.
  We know, through the testing that was done, that Form CRS appeared to 
be helpful for investors who had already read similar documents and who 
had more investing experience. And we know from the testing that was 
done that Form CRS, as currently written, is not that helpful for 
investors who haven't otherwise read similar documents.
  We can't tie the SEC's hands in determining which disclosure 
documents need further investor testing. But if we are sitting here and 
believe that we have an obligation to look out for the best interests 
of the American people, for investors, for Main Street investors, then 
the only choice before us is to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to do so.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gottheimer

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-237.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 4, insert after line 8 the following:
       (v) A consideration of unique challenges faced by retail 
     investors age 65 or older.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 629, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It 
simply requires the SEC to specifically consider the unique challenges 
senior investors face as part of its overall investor testing.
  Since I took office, I have been committed to helping seniors save 
their hard-earned money for retirement so they can afford to stay in 
New Jersey and enjoy their lives with their kids and grandkids.
  Unfortunately, there are millions of senior investors across the 
country who have been the victims of financial scammers, hucksters, and 
snake oil salesmen who have cheated them out of their rightful 
retirement.
  That is why, earlier this year, I introduced the Senior Security Act, 
bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed out of the House to 
help the SEC protect vulnerable seniors from predatory scams and 
financial abuse.
  This amendment is another critical step in making sure that the SEC 
continues to do right by our seniors, by making sure there is explicit 
consideration of senior investors as they proceed with investor 
testing.
  New Jersey seniors have given us so much. I will always have their 
backs to ensure they have the help they need to stay in Jersey and to 
protect them from those who would seek to take advantage of them.
  I thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Casten, for introducing this 
bill and for his commitment to protecting seniors. I thank the 
chairwoman also for her excellent leadership. And I urge my colleagues 
to support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the proposed 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I share my colleague's concerns about the 
challenges that senior investors face. I have had that with my own 
parents, who, unfortunately, are no longer with us. But I was a part of 
those investment discussions and decisions, and I had a brother who was 
very, very involved in that and a sister who also. We all worked 
together as a family, trying to figure this all out. This is a concern 
that all of us had.
  The author of the amendment was also the author of the Senior 
Security Act, which I supported, and massive bipartisan support came 
out of this House. Many people would be surprised about that, I would 
bet.
  But I am opposed, however, to adding to the already significant 
requirements of this investor testing bill. I will note that the bill, 
as drafted, would already require that the SEC do whatever testing it, 
in consultation with the Office of the Investor Advocate, determines is 
``appropriate for evaluating the effectiveness of retail disclosures.''
  It doesn't say for young people. It doesn't say middle-income people. 
It doesn't say for old people. It says for everyone. This is already 
covered.
  Earlier, you heard my amendment, that I was going to add to an 
exemption. Well, there is already a list of exemptions, that forms are 
exempted. Mine would have been in addition to that.
  The purpose of my amendment and my opposition to this amendment is to 
simplify, not to make it duplicative, not to make it more complicated, 
not to make it more cumbersome, burdened, and bureaucratic.
  As I read it, for the amendment to have any type of meaning, the 
amendment suggests that testing is either: A, flawed as it currently 
is; or, B, wouldn't consider seniors.
  I am assuming that is not what the author is intending to do, to 
question that.
  I just see this as unnecessary, duplicative testing that would add to 
the bill's cost and expand another layer of bureaucracy that doesn't 
ultimately help those retail investors. John and Jane 401(k), those 
mom-and-pop investors, whatever title you want to put to them, they 
need to be our focus.
  Now, there is a cottage industry of now-congressionally mandated 
investor testers. I am not really interested in continuing to give them 
jobs. I want to make sure that we protect those investors, but also 
give them that protection in a timely manner because timeliness is part 
of that protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one thing. Given 
the gravity of the situation with seniors in this country getting 
scammed out of billions of dollars or more every year, I don't think we 
can do enough.
  The only thing I would urge my friend here is, anything we can do to 
actually protect our seniors, we should be doing because what we are 
doing now is not working.
  When I go anywhere, I hear from seniors about these awful instances 
and stories of what is happening to them on these calls and getting 
defrauded. I think anything that we can do to help protect our seniors 
and go the extra

[[Page H8218]]

mile to help them is critically important. This is a way to do it that 
I think is effective, efficient, and will get the backs of our seniors, 
which, to me, is the least we can do for our seniors who have given so 
much to us.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Casten), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Gottheimer amendment. I would like to thank my friend, Representative 
Gottheimer, for his amendment and for his longtime support for seniors 
and their financial health.
  This amendment rightfully highlights that the SEC should take into 
account the unique circumstances that seniors face in making investment 
decisions when they do their investor testing.
  The financial health of seniors is critically important, and I am 
delighted that this bill has the support of the AARP and the 38 million 
seniors who they represent across our country. I stand with them in 
making clear that effective disclosure testing is imperative for 
facilitating informed decisionmaking for Americans trying to save and 
invest their hard-earned money.

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Gottheimer amendment.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close. I am curious on the 
remaining balance of time on both sides.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from New Jersey has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add, just one more 
time, to the critical importance, please.
  There is a reason why I think Mr. Casten and so many others have been 
driving this bipartisan legislation, and why the Senior Security Act 
was bipartisan is for a pretty simple reason.
  We all recognize that we have to do whatever possible to keep these 
fraudsters, these hucksters, these snake oil salesmen from scamming our 
seniors. It is beyond upsetting when you hear these stories of what has 
happened to our moms, our dads, and so many people in our community who 
have been, frankly, ripped off by these scam artists.
  This legislation--not just this amendment, but the legislation--will 
help protect our seniors; will help protect investors; and with my 
amendment, will make sure that when people are ready to retire, they 
have the nest egg they need to not just take care of themselves and 
have the medicine they need but, of course, buy a gift for their 
grandkid and make sure they are able to have those resources that they 
spent their whole lives saving for.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, again, my opposition to the amendment has 
nothing to do with putting seniors in danger. In fact, that is why I 
supported a litany of bills and a package of bills that included the 
author's Senior Security Act this last April. The House is unified in 
supporting seniors. What we are not unified in is supporting 
bureaucracy.
  By the way, the aforementioned that I had talked about, the Office of 
the Investor Advocate, would you like to know where that came from? The 
Dodd-Frank Act.
  What this amendment is saying is the Dodd-Frank Act failed in 
protecting seniors. The Dodd-Frank Act must have failed in protecting 
investors because we now need to have a specific, senior-worded sort of 
category that needs to be looked out after.
  The law is supposed to be blind, whether you are young, old, middle 
income, rich, poor, whatever it is. That protection also goes there.
  My opposition, again, is not about who has been affected but what is 
going to slow down that protection that those people deserve.
  Reasonable cost equals access. If we continue to increase costs, it 
limits the ability for people to access that protection, that advice. 
That is why I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Wagner

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-237.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 11, insert after ``regulation'' the following 
     ``after January 21, 2021''.
       Page 7, strike line 12 and all that follows through the 
     end.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 629, the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
1815, which would apply the bill's additional investor testing 
requirements only to disclosure documents developed after January 21, 
2021.
  If enacted, this legislation would hinder the implementation of 
important rules designed to better protect Main Street investors, 
particularly, the SEC's Regulation Best Interest rule. This rule has 
been in effect since September 10, 2019, but it has a compliance date 
of June 30, 2020.
  If further and ongoing testing were required, it would onerously roll 
back and delay further--after 7 years of testing, debate, deliberation, 
comment periods, litigation, it would only roll back and further delay, 
Mr. Chairman, all of the SEC's efforts to better protect those retail 
investors.

                              {time}  1330

  The bottom line is that this legislation is duplicative for rules 
already under consideration. The SEC has already conducted extensive 
investor testing of the proposed Form CRS, a component of the 
Regulation Best Interest rule. This is nothing, Mr. Chairman, but a 
political ploy, rope-a-dope, more neglect in not doing the work of the 
people. It does not serve those low- and middle-income investors, those 
constituents of mine in Missouri's Second Congressional District.
  It makes no sense to go back and conduct repetitive investor testing, 
leaving broker dealers and their clients--again, there are low- and 
middle-income investors--without a uniform best interest standard.
  That is why I ask all of my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment, and if it is not agreed to, to oppose the underlying bill, 
H.R. 1815, that does nothing but delay and disserve the people that we 
should be working hard to protect, those low- and middle-income retail 
investors that are a part of our beautiful and wonderful Main Street 
districts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me just say, no matter how many amendments the opposite 
side can come up with, no matter how many ways they try to explain why 
they are not speaking for the retail investors, the small folks, the 
people with not a lot of resources, the people who depend on good 
information to be disclosed to them, they can come up with all the 
amendments they want, but no one thinking clearly about this will 
understand why they are trying to protect the SEC, our cop on the 
block, from doing everything they possibly can do to protect our 
seniors and our most vulnerable people.
  So H.R. 1815 seeks, again, to ensure that disclosures specifically 
designed for the most vulnerable investors, including mom-and-pop 
retail investors, can actually be used and understood by their intended 
audiences. Isn't that a simple request in this bill, that our most 
vulnerable retail investors understand what they are investing in, that 
that information should be disclosed to them? I don't get the arguments 
against it.
  This amendment, however, directly conflicts with the scope of the 
bill,

[[Page H8219]]

which covers new as well as existing disclosures. Requiring existing 
disclosures to be subjected to investor testing makes good sense. 
Evidence has shown many existing disclosures are not understood. The 
evidence is there that tells you that we have discovered that the 
disclosures are not understood by these vulnerable people. We have 
information that documents that, that the investors, the small 
investors, these seniors, don't understand. This bill is about helping 
them to understand what they are signing on the dotted line for.
  Mandatory disclosures that are unused or not understood impose 
unnecessary costs on the companies making those disclosures, and 
importantly, fail to inform retail investors of key risks that they 
should know when making investment decisions.
  However, this amendment that is before you would treat disclosures 
that are put forth before the next Presidential election as perfect, 
without need for further investor input through testing. Such an 
exemption is inconsistent with the object and purpose of this bill.
  This undermines H.R. 1815 and its value to retail investors. So I 
could say this another 100 ways, they can come up with all the 
amendments they want to come up with; the fact of the matter is, this 
bill that is put forward by Mr. Casten is to protect the citizens who 
need the information the most, because they are vulnerable. And so 
having said that, I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri has 2 minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the ranking member of the 
Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets 
Subcommittee, my friend, to speak in support of the amendment and in 
opposition to the underlying bill.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and friend for 
yielding.
  Nobody is opposed to the idea of investor testing of SEC disclosure 
documents. By the way, neither is the SEC. They just proved that, as we 
know, from their testing of Form CRS.
  What I am opposed to, and I believe the gentlewoman is opposed to, is 
a testing loop. You test and refine, test-refine, test-refine. What is 
happening in between those time periods? What does it revert back to? 
And we can get into a death spiral or paralysis by analysis sometimes. 
Not that we don't have the best intentions and have the SEC move 
forward, we just need closure.
  Again, cost is a part of the access, but timeliness is part of access 
for everybody as well, and I am just afraid that with what we could get 
into we are going to be in this testing loop.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I have been working on 
this issue and fighting for the retail investors for all 7 of my years 
here in Congress with several pieces of legislation to bring this to 
fruition and to always, always hold that retail investor in the best 
interest to make sure that we are taking care of them and giving them 
the best advice, the best access, the best cost, but most of all that 
we secure their savings and their retirement investment and do 
everything we can to serve in their best interests. And that is why we 
must bring this after 7 long years to a close.
  It is time that we stop playing rope-a-dope with duplicative rules 
that have already been under consideration and by conducting extensive 
investor testing that has already been done. The SEC is the absolute 
body of jurisdiction. They must harmonize with the Department of Labor, 
and have, and now we have got a short, two-form page. We have got 
disclosures and titles that are clear that is serving the best 
interests of our constituents.

  I would ask everyone to consider my amendment to H.R. 1815, and if it 
is not agreed to, to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), the author of this bill, to 
continue to tell the public why we must protect the most vulnerable in 
our society.
  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Wagner amendment. The wealth that Americans hold in their 
retirement accounts, in their 401(k)s, in their IRAs, all the places 
that they hold their wealth, the fees they pay on that wealth, the 
returns they earn on that wealth do not care when the law was written, 
or the form was processed.
  We know, we have evidence, that many of the existing disclosure 
documents intended for retail investors are not well understood by 
their target audience. So I would ask you: What is the cost to your 
wealth of another percent a year in asset management fees? What is the 
cost to you, to your wealth, of another percent a year compounding in 
the growth of your wealth? Multiply that by all the Americans who make 
their investments. Billions, trillions of dollars.
  This amendment was offered as a way to protect people. It is 
protecting people, but it isn't protecting investors. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri will be 
postponed.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Casten of Illinois

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-237.
  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney) to offer amendment 
No. 4.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, insert after line 5 the following:
       ``(H) Retail investor defined.--For the purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `retail investor' means any investor that 
     is not an institutional investor.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 629, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Casten) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1815 was drafted specifically 
for SEC disclosures that are required to be delivered to or intended or 
substantially likely to be materially relied on by retail investors, 
but not by sophisticated institutional investors like mutual funds or 
hedge funds.
  Representative Sean Maloney's amendment clarifies that this bill is 
intended to protect retail investors. That is a commonsense amendment, 
which allows the bill to achieve our goal, which is to ensure that mom-
and-pop investors are able to use the disclosures intended specifically 
for them.
  I thank Representative Maloney for this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply attempts to define 
an unclear and undefined term by making reference to another unclear 
and undefined term.
  For context, let me be clear on where this comes from. The Securities 
and Exchange Act of 1934 does not define either the term ``retail 
investor'' or ``institutional investor.'' This amendment pretends to 
add clarity, but arguably further muddies an already confusing bill by 
adding a second new undefined term.
  In fact, there are some who believe that the amendment might actually 
expand the bill's reach, because the bill, as amended, could be 
interpreted to apply to any document designed to reach anybody other 
than that ``institutional investor.''

[[Page H8220]]

  So we have a problem here, Mr. Chairman. We have undefined terms. We 
have muddied, not clear goals and objectives here, and so, I would 
rhetorically ask, what is an institutional investor? Is it a small-town 
investment manager who is a sole practitioner, but has set up their own 
business and now is, thus, an institution? Does the business require 
multiple employees? Does it require a large number of employees? I, for 
one, am not sure. Does it have a dollar amount attached to it? It could 
be one person, a very wealthy person investing millions or a whole 
bunch of smaller investors, who don't have millions, banding together 
and now they are suddenly institutional investors.
  So let's just not make H.R. 1815 more confusing than it already is. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote 
for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has 
been a living, breathing document; but in those subsequent years from 
1934, there has never been a definition of either ``retail investor'' 
or ``institutional investor,'' and to hang an amendment on those terms 
which are undefined legally is simply a mistake.
  So, Mr. Chair, I do not support this unnecessarily confusing 
amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Casten).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 116-237 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Gottheimer of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mrs. Wagner of Missouri.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Huizenga

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 229, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 561]

                               AYES--188

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--229

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Babin
     Bishop (NC)
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Granger
     Lawson (FL)
     Lesko
     Loudermilk
     McEachin
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Rush
     Ryan
     San Nicolas
     Weber (TX)
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wright
     Yoho

                              {time}  1415

  Messrs. PANETTA, O'HALLERAN, ENGEL, and JOHNSON of Georgia changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CRAWFORD, BILIRAKIS, BURCHETT, and BROOKS of Alabama changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gottheimer

  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Pingree). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.

[[Page H8221]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 178, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 562]

                               AYES--240

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stefanik
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young

                               NOES--178

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Babin
     Bishop (NC)
     Cardenas
     Gabbard
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Granger
     Lawson (FL)
     Loudermilk
     McEachin
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Rush
     Ryan
     San Nicolas
     Weber (TX)
     Williams
     Wright
     Yoho


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1422

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Wagner

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Wagner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 230, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 563]

                               AYES--188

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford

[[Page H8222]]


     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Babin
     Bishop (NC)
     Cardenas
     Gabbard
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Granger
     Grijalva
     Lawson (FL)
     Loudermilk
     McEachin
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Ryan
     San Nicolas
     Weber (TX)
     Williams
     Wright
     Yoho

                              {time}  1428

  Mr. BUCHANAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Richmond). There being no further amendments 
under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Pingree) having assumed the chair, Mr. Richmond, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1815) to 
require the Securities and Exchange Commission, when developing rules 
and regulations about disclosures to retail investors, to conduct 
investor testing, including a survey and interviews of retail 
investors, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
629, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the 
House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


         Mourning the Passing of the Honorable Elijah Cummings

  Mr. HOYER. Today, Mr. Speaker, is a sad day. It is a sad day for us; 
it is a sad day for this institution; and it is a sad day for America. 
We have lost a wonderful human being, a good and decent human being, a 
human being who made a difference for this institution, for all of us 
who knew him and were his friend, for his constituents, and for all 
Americans. All of us in this House lost a respected colleague. Many of 
us lost a dear, longtime, and good friend.
  He came in 1996 to this body, and every time I ran for a leadership 
position, my friend Elijah Cummings nominated me. The passing this 
morning of Chairman Elijah Cummings of the Committee on Oversight and 
Reform was a painful shock to all who have served with him, more, of 
course, to his family, Dr. Rockeymoore Cummings, his wife, and his 
three children.
  Elijah was a prophet of God whose name means ``my God is the Lord.'' 
Elijah Cummings was true to his name.
  He was a leader for our country and for our State of Maryland, and we 
have the Members, including our favorite daughter. He was a leader for 
our State. He was a leader, like our brother   John Lewis, for 
principle, for comity, and for civility.
  He was a quiet man who did not seek the limelight, but he was not 
afraid to step out into the arena and fight hard for the causes in 
which he believed strongly. As all of us know, those causes were 
justice, equality, opportunity, civil rights, education, and children. 
He liked to say that children are the message we send to a future that 
we will never see. His parents sent Elijah into the future, and how 
much better the future was.
  He was beloved by his constituents, both those in the city of 
Baltimore and those in its suburbs. Indeed, Elijah was probably better 
loved in my district than I am. Most of my colleagues will understand 
that, of course.
  He worked hard, even in his final days. The Speaker is going to 
speak, and I am sure she will say something about the telephone call 
she had with him just days ago, doing the people's business. As his 
health faltered, his passion for his work did not.
  In the days ahead, we will have many opportunities, of course, to 
speak about our friend, Elijah, about his passion for service, his many 
contributions to Maryland and our Nation, and his deep convictions as a 
moral leader and a man of decency and love for his neighbor.
  Some of you recall Elijah at the time of great distress in 
Baltimore--anger, outbursts. Elijah walked among them as a man of peace 
and, like no other person in our State, brought peace where there was 
no peace. We will have opportunities to remember that. And we have a 
chance to reflect on the love he had for his wife, Maya, and his three 
children.
  Today, in remembering Elijah Cummings, we have a chance to promote 
the vision he held of the people's House coming together in a spirit of 
unity and purpose. Sadly, today, that purpose is to mourn his passing 
and remember a dear friend who will no longer be with us as we continue 
his work to which he gave his all. But, hopefully, his example will be 
with us.
  Elijah used to say, when he saw conflict and confrontation, when he 
saw things he thought were not up to the standards we had set for our 
country and for ourselves because of our faith, our Constitution, and 
our Declaration, he would say, ``We are better than that.''
  As we human beings do things, from time to time, that are not kind to 
one another, not thoughtful, and not respectful to one another, let us 
say to ourselves: We are better than that. That is what Elijah said to 
himself.
  Mr. Speaker, in that spirit of unity, I will be yielding shortly to 
the Republican leader to share his reflections. But first, as I 
referred to her as Maryland's favorite daughter, I am honored to yield 
to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi D'Alesandro. Now she would 
say Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi. I understand that. We are so proud of our 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is a very disconcerting day for so many 
of us here.
  I thank Mr. Hoyer for bringing us together to mourn the loss of our 
dear friend and colleague, Elijah Cummings. I thank my friend for his 
beautiful statement calling forth so many of the beautiful attributes 
of Elijah Cummings.
  As the gentleman spoke, I was reminded of how he always was a calmer 
of the waters. No matter how rough and tumble things would be, he would 
always just calm the waters and reach out, whether it was across the 
aisle, across the issue, across the Capitol, or down Pennsylvania 
Avenue.

  I know that the people of Baltimore, the U.S. Congress, and America 
have lost the voice of the unsurpassed moral clarity and truth of our 
beloved Mr. Chairman, Elijah Cummings. I am personally devastated by 
his passing, as I know many of us are.
  We have flowers in his place where he sat, where we all sought 
counsel, learned more, or calmed down and were lifted up by the wisdom, 
the graciousness, and the goodness of Elijah Cummings.

[[Page H8223]]

  In the House, Elijah was the North Star. He was a leader of towering 
character and integrity whose stirring voice and steadfast values 
pushed the Congress and the country to give rise to a higher purpose of 
why we are here.
  His principled leadership as the chair of the Committee on Oversight 
and Reform was a perfect testament to his commitment to restoring 
honesty and honor to government, and he leaves a powerful legacy for 
years to come.
  People think of him as that chairman but meaning so much to him was 
his role as a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. He was always fighting for his district, for his State of 
Maryland, and for the country. He was a powerful voice for building the 
infrastructure of America and for creating good-paying jobs. He was a 
working-class guy in terms of whom he was here to serve.
  I was very proud of him as a member of the U.S. Naval Academy Board 
of Visitors. He took great pride in the Naval Academy, his role on the 
board, and Maryland's role in our national security. I know we have 
some Naval Academy graduates here, and that was a source of great 
pride. He said that you have taken me to a new level of decisionmaking, 
in terms of national security.
  Chairman Cummings' story was the story of America. He was a 
sharecropper's son who dedicated his life to advancing justice, 
respecting human dignity, and--as the gentleman from Maryland said--
ending discrimination.
  He believed in the promise of America because he had lived it. He 
dedicated his life to advancing those values that safeguard our 
Republic: justice, equality, liberty, and fairness.
  As our distinguished leader, Mr. Hoyer, said earlier, we were always 
listening to Elijah. These flowers remind me of it because of the 
growth and renewal that are there. He said, ``Our children are the 
living messages we send to a future we will never see.''
  He also wanted to build a future that was worthy of the aspirations 
of our children. He always wanted to make sure that they took with them 
the values that nurtured him and that he was promoting in his public 
service.
  Earlier this year, Chairman Cummings asked us: ``When we are dancing 
with the angels, the question will be asked: In 2019, what did we do to 
make sure we kept our democracy intact?''
  He is now with the angels, out of pain.
  And Maya said this morning, he fought the fight right up until the 
end. And those of us who communicated with him--I didn't know he was 
this close. I thought he was coming back in a few weeks.
  But our Members, as I stated to our Republican colleagues, we had a 
conference call on Friday, this past Friday, not a full week ago, in 
which Elijah, as always, was passionate about what he believed in, 
dispassionate about how he conveyed a plan for how we would go forward 
with fairness, with justice, with dignity, worthy of the oath of office 
that we take to the Constitution, worthy of the vision of our Founders 
establishing this institution, and worthy, again, of the aspirations of 
our children, his words: messengers to a future we will never see.
  His leadership made a difference in strengthening our democracy. 
Again, during difficult times, let us draw strength from his righteous 
words that the leader has been reminding us of all day: ``We are better 
than this. We are better than this.''
  In the Congress, we will miss his wisdom, his dignity, the brilliance 
of his mind, the kindness of his heart, the friendship that meant so 
much to us and that we could all call upon.
  In Baltimore, we will miss him as a champion.
  May it be a comfort to his wife, Maya, to whom I conveyed the good 
wishes of the Congress this morning, may it be a comfort to Maya, to 
his three children and Chairman Cummings' entire family and, I want to 
add to that, his dedicated and devoted staff, in every capacity--as a 
Member, as a chairman, as a member of the committee, whom he just 
treated with such fairness and respect, his staff--may it be a comfort 
to them all that so many mourn their loss and are praying for them at 
this sad time and that he will always be inside of our hearts as we 
make decisions about our responsibilities and how we will be 
accountable when we are dancing with the angels.
  God bless you, darling Elijah. We all love you. We miss you, but we 
will never forget you, and your legacy will live in the Congress of the 
United States in this House of Representatives.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), Speaker of the House, for her remarks.
  I know Elijah felt very strongly about her and his support of her and 
her leadership and how proud he was that she was from the city of 
Baltimore that he loved so greatly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), 
my friend, the minority leader, and another good friend of Elijah's.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I thank 
him for his words, and I thank the Speaker.
  We lost more than just a Member of Congress when we lost Elijah 
Cummings. As the Speaker spoke of his life, she talked about him 
bringing calmness. I want you to reflect for one moment, when have you 
ever served in this body that we have been this calm and this quiet and 
this reflective? Elijah's work is still good with us right now.
  Chairman Cummings had enormous presence. As many times he would be an 
adversary, he was a respected adversary because he was tough. He had 
such a presence on this side of the aisle and an impression that, when 
we would sit inside our steering committee--and maybe I am breaking the 
rule; we are never supposed to talk about what we say in there. When we 
would select a chair or a ranking member, this is the one committee we 
weighed who we went against.
  And every time we spoke of selecting an individual who can rise to 
the occasion, to be in debate with him, we would look for somebody who 
was strong. And every time someone was selected, they would come back 
to be a very best friend of Elijah Cummings.
  It is a tough committee. It is a committee of accountability. It is a 
committee of debate. I can't tell you how many friends would call me 
and be in fear because they got a letter from Cummings. But he was a 
man of fairness.
  You will know this because, in committees, at times, you have these 
debates. But when you are sitting as a chair and ranking member, what 
we would talk about is Elijah would share with us the life lessons, you 
know what he would say privately to the chair or the ranking member on 
the other side, what he would say to   Jim Jordan, what he would say to 
Trey Gowdy.
  Trey shared with me today, he never stopped talking, even though he 
left Congress.
  Jim Jordan shared with me today that he was talking to Elijah just 
last week about committee business.
  Trey talked about a story.
  Trey was pretty tough on one person. And Trey is good; that 
prosecutor in him can get to the point. Elijah turned to him and said: 
She is not a government employee. She has a family, and she has 
children. You can be a little softer next time.
  And that hit on his heart.
  And what I fear in the world today, that when they look at us, they 
get this persona through cameras and social media, but it doesn't show 
our character. We are the only ones who get the window into one 
another's character of how we act. We are the ones who should share the 
message.
  Because he was so strong in his beliefs, I am afraid some people in 
America won't know what type of character he actually had, not as a 
Member of Congress and not as a political figure, but as a person, 
because that is how I knew Elijah. He was a fighter. So many times in 
his life people told him no, and he would say, yes, he could.
  He was a leader, but not in the sense that America probably thinks as 
a Member of Congress. His entire life he wanted to overturn racial 
injustice.
  A Member shared with me the first time he got to know him was on a 
codel down in Mexico. Most of the people on the bus were asleep because 
it was one of those long trips, and Elijah sat and talked to him. This 
Member was from the South, and he talked about how his grandparents 
were there, but his grandparents moved him away

[[Page H8224]]

because they felt he would have a better chance just because of the 
color of his skin, that he would get a better education.

  Elijah was not upset by that. He felt this country gave him the 
opportunity. That is why he wanted to serve.
  So, all those who are here, it was an honor, a fortune, and a 
privilege to know him. If you are a freshman, I hope you took a few 
moments with him, because it didn't matter if you were a chair or a 
ranking member or if you were a Republican or a Democrat, he would 
spend that time with you.
  I feel I am better for having known him, and I want you to know, from 
this side of the aisle, no matter how hard of a debate we were in, I 
have only heard respect for how he carried out the business. We 
respected him because he was good. We respected him because he beat us 
many times. We respected him because of what he fought for, he believed 
in.
  Our deepest prayers go to Maya, because in those life lessons and in 
that window that we get to see, it is not the easiest to have a family 
in these jobs. We have a lot of things pulled on us, but we knew where 
his heart stood, where his family mattered, and what he continued to 
believe in.
  So, yes, today we lost more than just a Member, but I hope as the 
days progress, as the times change and our debate gets heated again, 
that we reflect on this moment of calmness, reflect on this moment of 
thinking of one another, and we reflect on the idea that, yes, 
television may give us a different persona of who we are, but, yes, you 
and I get to see the window of the character within each and every one 
of us. I think that is what Elijah would want us to do.
  So in his honor, let's find that tomorrow will be better than today 
and that this calmness will last longer than the next vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, in that spirit, I will ask for a moment of silence. But 
before I do that, let me mirror the remarks of the leader on the other 
side of the aisle.
  A moment of silence will not be enough to respect the life of Elijah 
Cummings. What will be enough is we follow his example for a lifetime--
not for a moment, but for a lifetime--if we give one another the 
respect that he would give to us, if we give one another the 
consideration that the leader indicated that he gave to him.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we stand for a moment of silence and a 
lifetime of following an example.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Clyburn). The Chair asks that all 
Members please rise for a moment of silence in remembrance of our good 
friend and colleague, the Honorable Chairman Elijah E. Cummings.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pingree). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 186, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 564]

                               YEAS--229

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--186

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Babin
     Bishop (NC)
     DeLauro
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Granger
     Lawson (FL)
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Ratcliffe
     Ryan
     Weber (TX)
     Williams
     Wright
     Yoho

                              {time}  1503

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________