LIVE: House Rules Committee Considers Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational Institutions Act

Come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider a single measure, H.R. 1013, the Bipartisan Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational Institutions Act of 2025. H.R. 1013 ensures that teachers, employees of charitable organizations, and other nonprofit sector employees participating in 403B retirement plans have the same access to cost-effective options that are available to employees with other retirement plans, including 401K and 457B plans. This legislation creates a level playing field for those who have dedicated their careers and their livelihoods to serving others and institutes a necessary correction to securities law that was not considered within SECURE 2.0 that passed the House during the 117th Congress. I'll also note that this legislation has the support of a majority of Republicans and Democrats on the Financial Services Committee. It passed out of committee by a vote of 43 to 8. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses here today from the Financial Services Committee and to the subsequent conversations we will have. With that, I now yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And given the historic nature of the election last week, there's a lot I could say. But I want to keep this short and sweet. Because I don't have much to add to what the American people said last week at the ballot box. They made their verdict on this majority very clear. And they made their verdict on Trump and MAGA very clear. Come next year, it's going to be a new day in Washington. But I want to be clear about what that means. Because it's not enough for Democrats to win power. It's about what we do with it. And we didn't just run to win. We ran to change things around here. To fix the broken status quo. Clean up Washington once and for all. And work for a more affordable America. We must put government back on the side of the American people. And I'm already working with our caucus to deliver what the American people voted for. But until then, Republicans are still in charge. And I would just urge my Republican colleagues to use these next two months to finish the job that we were sent here to do. Keep the lights on. Get the government's work done. Take the message from America and do your damn job for once. And I'd warn against using these final weeks to ram through a laundry list of extreme partisan priorities and a laundry list of culture war issues that the American people just voted resoundingly to rebuke. They voted deliberately and decisively for change, not more of the same extremism that we've seen over the last two years. And Republicans ought to respect that. And with that, I welcome our witnesses and I yield back my time. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our panel, Representative Davidson and Ranking Member Waters from the House Financial Services Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Davidson, I welcome your testimony. Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1013, the Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational Institutions Act. This legislation takes aim at fundamental disparity in retirement plans. Public servants and nonprofit employees using 403B plans cannot access the same investments as their private sector counterparts access using 401Ks. Today, 15 million. 403B plan participants working at hospitals, churches, charities, and public schools around the country are unable to invest in collective investment trusts, or CITs, or insurance companies' separate accounts. Meanwhile, private sector workers benefit from these cost-effective pooled investment options. ...to grow their nest eggs. Ever since 1958, ever since their creation in 1958, 403B plans have evolved through targeted legislation over time to better align with 401K standards. In similar fashion, H.R. 1013 levels the playing field by allowing 403B plan participants the same investment options as 401Ks. So let me address several misconceptions about the legislation. First, the bill does not allow any direct retail sales to individuals, as is the same in all other retirement plans. These options are only available where there is an institutional plan sponsor overseeing the 403B investments. Plan oversight is fully regulated by either the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, or state laws on public employee benefits. Second, the offerings contemplated in the bill are subject to significant legal protections, including ERISA's fiduciary rules and the rules set up by federal, state, and local governments to protect their own workers. In fact, investments in the Thrift Savings Plan, the vehicle through which both members of Congress and our staff invest for retirement, operate under similar exemptions as this bill provides. Finally, robust investor protections are maintained regardless of the specific agency overseeing the plan. By shifting the framework to the Department of Labor and ERISA, the plan fiduciaries and those managing the CIT are held to the strongest legal standard in the financial industry. Further, CITs themselves are regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency. As well as state banking regulators and the SEC retains full enforcement authority against illegal selling practices. According to Morningstar, over half of all target date assets are already in CITs because they deliver lower operating costs. There is simply no reason why Congress should continue to deny public school teachers, firefighters, and charity workers the institutional-grade, cost-effective investments enjoyed by private sector employees. That is why this measure passed the Financial Services Committee with a 43-8 vote. And it was incorporated into the Strongly Bipartisan Invest Act, which passed the House 302-123, with 87 Democrats in support. So devoting your career to community service should not put restrictions on your hard-earned retirement savings. I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 1013, and I thank the committee. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Ms. Waters, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It hasn't been a week since the historic election. When the American people send Congress a clear message, stop. Yes, it is. Can you hear me? Thank you, Madam Chair. It hasn't even been a week since the historic election when the American people sent Congress a clear message. Stop making things unaffordable. Stop foreign wars. Stop lining the pockets of White House insiders, billionaires, and corporate executives. Families are struggling to keep up with rent and groceries. Grocery bills while the president's reckless and illegal tariffs push prices higher still. They're paying outrageous prices at the gas station. And for utilities, as they watch the well-connected get richer, including the Trump family profiting from crypto corruption. So given this unprecedented cry of anger from voters, what is the first bill Republicans want to consider right after the election? Not a bill to lower costs, a bill to end the war, a bill to rein in AI, or a bill to clean up corruption. Instead, they want to pass a bill that is a giveaway. The banks, insurance companies, Wall Street investment firms, and unregulated retirement consultants, and who will end up paying for this giveaway, teachers and nurses with their retirement savings. As the committee knows, the bill would remove safeguards protecting 403B plans, which... Which are how teachers, nurses, non-profits, workers, and the staff of hospitals and charities save for retirement. These plans hold over $1.6 trillion. This is not small change. Today, the mutual funds and variable annuities sold to teacher retirement plans and others must be registered with the SEC. That registration gives a retirement plan. Important information to compare options for the benefit of the real people who have served and saved their hard-earned salaries for retirement. H.R. 1013, however, would allow banks and insurance companies to sell two kinds of financial products without registering them with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Collective Investment Trusts and Insurance Company. Separate accounts, if the bill becomes a law, a school district fiduciary who is choosing options for the retirement plan of their teachers would not get standardized, detailed information as they do currently, information that is necessary to make the best possible investment decision. And unlike a mutual fund, a collective trust has no independent board approving its fees. Republicans call this parody the 401k plan. It is not. Nearly every 401k plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. Holds the people who run a plan to a fiduciary standard and requires fees disclosure to every participant. The Department of Labor enforces it. But, and some of you may not be aware, most 403B plans are not covered by ERISA at all. And so, any suggestion that this would treat 401K plans the same as 403B plans, Only applies to a very small minority of the teachers, nurses, and non-profit employees plans. This bill allows the employer, who is often busy with their day-to-day job, to hand the job of approving investments to, quote, Another person acting on behalf of their employer, quote-unquote. The bill does not require that person to be a fiduciary, that is, to act in the best interest of the plan, to be registered with a federal agency, or even to be independent of the companies whose products they sell. The bill also specifically exempts these products from U.S. securities law. So a firm that sells only these products would not have to register with the SEC as a broker-dealer and the SEC's best interest rule which ensures that the financial intermediary is acting in the best interest of the retirement plan would not apply. As a result unregulated retirement consultants will end up nickeling and diming our teachers' retirement options. very much. I've seen what hidden conflicts cost, and for example, in 2020, a subsidiary of a major annuity company agreed to pay about $40 million to settle SEC charges because the SEC found that it failed to disclose to Florida teachers that it's... The parent company had paid an outside group for 13 years to promote it. That case depended on the SEC's oversight of the firms that sell to teachers. This bill removes the SEC from protecting those teachers. Collective investment trusts can also take risks that mutual funds cannot. Mutual funds face limits on illiquid assets and on borrowing. And federal banking rules set no such limits for collective trust. And some of these trusts are run by state. Chartered trust companies with no federal oversight at all. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is moving to put risky private equity and private credit investments into workers' retirement plans. Collective investment trusts are a clear way to do just that. Now, I understand there is a real desire to lower costs for retirement plans, but this is not that approach. Democrats have offered a better path. My amendment would allow these plans to use collective trusts. But reform trusts to the benefit of all investors by requiring them to publish their fees, how they conduct valuation and use leverage, and what they pay the middlemen to sell them. This approach would also hold state-chartered trust companies to the same standard. I filed this approach as an amendment. In addition, Mr. Lynch has offered an amendment that would only apply this bill to 403B plans. Ms. Waters, we'll put your remarks in the record. Thank you, and I only have a few more pages to go. That's all right. We'll be happy to take your full remarks in the record. Well, I won't be happy, but I have to do so because you got to chair. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Waters. All right. Appreciate it. Representative Davidson, we know that the changes this bill will make will allow millions of Americans who work in schools and non-profits to have access to the same investment opportunities that 401k participants have enjoyed for years. However, despite these benefits, some of my Democrat friends claim the bill will allow unregulated products. Can you explain the role of the SEC and other enforcement entities with respect to CIT products? Yeah, thanks, Chairwoman. I think the Securities and Exchange Commission oversees a range of products. They're, of course, primary regulator for securities. But in this case, CITs are overseen by the Office of the Controller of Currency. So rather than change this for everyone to accommodate the rules of 403Bs, this just says, well, let's keep what works for 401Ks. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency oversees these trusts. They've been, I mean, if you look at a target age fund, what is a CIT? It's essentially a target age fund. So let's say, you know, our younger staffers, when they're using their thrift savings plans, they might have maybe a riskier allocation than someone my age, and someone my age might have a different profile than, say, my parents' age, where they're just mostly capital preservation. So that's kind of what a target date fund does, and over time, that's come to be regulated by the office of the controller of the currency. This doesn't change that. This just says, hey, it works in 401ks. It's been stable and functional for them and for thrift savings plans. Let's let 403Bs have access to these same funds. So when people in 403Bs want to do a target date fund, they have a hard time accessing it in the first place. And if they do access it, they're paying higher fees than their counterparts are for a different management approach. No different result other than a higher fee structure. So the goal here is to provide a less expensive return for the kinds of workers that are covered in 403B plans. I started out investing in a 403B. And I never had any complaints about it, but I didn't understand at the time. And I guess 401Ks came along later. So what you're saying is, if I'm hearing you right, is that the 403B people are paying more in many cases than the 401K people are. That's correct. And the other part that I think the ranking member kind of glossed over is that the SEC retains full authority to regulate investment managers. They police fraud. They take enforcement action against any misleading information in the marketplace, even though the OCC is really the primary oversight regulatory body for the CIT funds. But that's the net effect is they're really the same product. They're just paying higher fees. And certainly, people who work in nonprofits and teachers need to maximize their retirement as much as any people in the world. Well, in fact, the fiduciaries have a duty to do it, and they would rather find a lower fee option. It's a fiduciary responsibility if you're a fiduciary on a plan, but they can't because the law prevents it. If they could manage it the same way that a 401k did, they would use a CIT. Great. Mr. McGovern. I just have a procedural question. Ms. Davidson, Ms. Waters in her testimony, she mentioned she had an amendment, she mentioned Mr. Lynch had an amendment. I don't know, there may be others who have amendments that she was advocating for. You don't have any objection if those amendments are made in order, we have a debate, and people can vote up or down on them. Well, I'm not on the Rules Committee, but I will say those amendments were considered in the Financial Services Committee already, and the bill passed without them 43-8, so it wasn't really a partisan exercise to pass it without the amendments when we had the committee debate. Yeah, Ms. Waters. Well. I understand that there's another amendment that Mr. Lynch, and so is that amendment? That was offered in committee? It was? Yeah. Well, I mean, the point of the matter, I mean, I don't know why, and again, I have respect for the work that committees do, but, you know, just because the committee reported on the bill doesn't mean that it can't be improved and that other people have some ideas. I mean, there was a time when, you know. It wasn't a radical idea to allow people to offer amendments. So I know you're not on the Rules Committee, but that's why I didn't ask you whether you'd make them in order or not. I just want to make sure you don't have any objections. I hope your principled position endures, Mr. McGovern, and I've enjoyed your views from the ranking member position far more than when you were chairman, because you rarely made anything in order. As I bring amendments before a committee from time to time, but I will say... And I'm going to say one thing. It's been 110 days since Republicans allowed a vote on an amendment on the House floor. And so, yeah, if you want me to learn by your example, you know what, I'll entertain that notion. But I have been around here long enough to know what it was like when amendments that I didn't agree with were made in order, and I enjoyed trying to defeat them on the House floor, and sometimes I lost. But the bottom line is, you know, I don't understand why this is such a controversial matter. If you have an objection to making any ideas. That, in order on the House floor, that's fine. I respect that position. I disagree with it. I only ask you if you had any objection to making these amendments in order. Well, that's up to the Rules Committee. But I do applaud the idea that germane amendments would be considered. I'll point out that the ranking members amendment is... is maybe on the topic, but it's got all kinds of other things. I mean, as you can tell from her testimony, she's really fixated on the Trump administration and Donald Trump's personal behavior. This doesn't do anything with any of that. This deals with 403B plans. This doesn't deal with the Trump family or anything else. This deals with 403Bs being able to work with 401Ks. So it's up to the committee to decide what truly is germane or not. Well, it's either germane or not, but Ms. Waters, why don't you describe your amendment? Well, let me just say, this amendment has nothing to do with the Trump family. Of course, I had comments introducing this because I think it is timely, but the amendments Thank It's been implied to have nothing to do with the Trump family. What I don't understand is, of course, we have a Securities and Exchange Commission, and that's our basically cop on the block to provide this kind of protection. you. What's wrong with teachers and nurses, et cetera? Getting information. I don't understand what it is about this amendment that is so objectionable. Well, I don't either, but apparently... Did the chair speak to this issue? What did the... Oh, there's Ms. Fox. Ms. Fox, did you speak to this issue of whether or not perhaps given the understanding that there is another amendment, whether or not this amendment can be allowed? So if I understand your amendment would require the trustees of Collective Investment Trust to disclose a fund fact sheet about the financial product being offered to 403B plans, which would include the fund's investment objectives, portfolio holdings, fees, compensation arrangements offered to intermediaries, use of leverage, and other information. And, you know, I... Again, I, you know, this amendment is merely requesting that an investment fund provide more information to school teachers and church employees, you know, should at minimum be given, you know, that's what it applies to, but at a minimum, you know, I think it should be given up or down vote. I don't think it's very controversial, but in any event, you know. Things haven't changed much. Okay, you're absolutely correct. My amendment just let these plans use collective trust, but reform trust to the benefit of all investors by requiring them to publish their fees, how they conduct valuations and use leverage and what they pay. The middleman who sold them, this approach would also hold state chartered trust companies to the same standard. I filed this approach as an amendment. What's wrong with the information? I've never understood. I could never understand. We both share the same frustration, but I promise you that if it's not made in order, we'll try to offer it as an amendment to the rule. Well, I appreciate that, and thank you so much. I yield back. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Davidson, maybe you want to address or talk a little bit about that amendment and your opinion on it. And was that one of the ones that was offered in committee and defeated? Thank you, Ms. Fischbach. As the ranking member clarified, this amendment is a different one than was offered in committee. Thank you very much, everybody. Mr. Lynch's is the same as was offered in committee. Ms. Waters' amendment that she's presenting today. is a little different, but unfortunately, it would still strip away many of the benefits that make CITs attractive to an investor. The amendment also includes, as she just described, an unprecedented expansion of SEC enforcement over state chartered banks and trust companies, an area already well covered by the OCC and state bank regulators. She also describes it as if SEC loses their jurisdiction, it doesn't. And frankly, it would treat CITs that are used by 403Bs differently than CITs that were treated by 401Ks. And if there was a problem with CITs, if we saw failures or some deficiency in the marketplace, well, I think people would be open to remediating. What it really is, is a bunch of red tape. It's designed to create a three-year Treasury approval review process for something that is just a common sense reform. So it's just like the amendment, the process is basically dilatory. I urge everyone to reject the amendment, whether it's through the rules process or if we get an up-and-down vote, I think it's a no-brainer to vote no on this amendment. to distill things. So I think I heard you say that amendment undoes what you're trying to do with the bill to start with. Is that right? Precisely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Davidson, can you remind me, this bill came out of committee bipartisanly? 43 to 8. Very bipartisan. And I appreciate the fact that you're providing other opportunities to save for retirement because it's something we like to encourage so that people are taken care of and have the opportunity to take care of themselves when they retire. So I appreciate it, and I support the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Gannon, you're recognized. Thank you. Good to see all my colleagues. It's been quite a while. I know my constituents are wondering what we're going to be working on this week. I don't think the bill involving 403Bs and 401Ks was probably at the top of the list for my constituents. I think they'd still like to see us considering legislation to end the war in Iran or fund the government before the money runs out on December 11th. Here we are, and I'm trying to wrestle with this, like Chairwoman Fox, my first retirement plan was a 403B because I worked for a non-profit legal center. It was always explained to me as being just like a 401K, so interesting to get to dig into the differences here. Chairman Davidson, you just said something about if there were a problem with the CITs in the marketplace, then maybe it should have some of these, they should have some of the provisions that are being suggested here. So that's where there's a real divide here between the CITs that are used with the 401Ks and those with the 403Bs? Thank you. I mean, this is a bill that's trying to bring parity between 403Bs and 401Ks. Basically, nonprofits and, you know, union pension funds have access to the same thing that 401k participants have. So over, you know, by comparison, 401k is massively larger number of market participants, massively more capital invested. So we're not dealing with a bill on how to regulate CITs. And that's the fundamental issue that the ranking member is blending here. She's trying to regulate CITs in a way that... We'll turn the default regulatory approach into something that isn't, I mean, frankly, right now, you can't even use it in a 401k. So this regulatory scheme that she's devised doesn't exist. And she's saying, well, I might be okay letting 403bs have access to the same investment approach that 401ks do, but you have to regulate them differently. Well, then draft a bill to regulate CITs. This is a bill treating parity. The reality is that the ranking member is opposed to the bill. She's one of the eight members opposed to the bill. But overwhelmingly, this is not a partisan issue. It's just... It's not correcting a problem with CITs, Target Date Investment Funds. So if you say, hey, I'm 30, and how should I save my money? You let some money managers do it. It's a simplified approach to saving for your retirement. A lot of people choose to have their retirement accounts managed that way. And when 403B participants choose that, they're using a different approach that has higher fees. And you're simply saying, well, let them use the same thing that's working just fine over here in the 401Ks. And if Ms. Waters says, you know, that's a failed approach, well, great, then you oppose the bill, which is her position. Now she's trying to sabotage the bill and turn it into some new regulatory scheme for CITs instead of simply saying, well, I just don't think 403Bs should have access to that. Okay, then vote no on the bill. Ranking member, did you have something you wanted to respond to? All that I am saying is that 401Ks are protected by ERISA. Most 403ks are not, and basically what I'm saying is they all, everybody deserves an opportunity to understand and know, to be able to get answers and understand how they're protected or not protected. And so if we have a way to do that, and we do, because again, the 401ks are protected by ERISA. And 403Ks are not. Let's get the 403Ks in the same position as the 401Ks. Why not? With respect to, now there are a couple amendments. Mr. Lynch offered one, and I think you did as well. Which one is the one dealing with the fact sheet? Is that both amendments? Okay. And so that's to provide transparency, as I understand it? Okay. I mean, we hear the speaker constantly telling us that this is a Congress that loves transparency. Thank you, Nancy. Mr. Davidson, do you know why this fact sheet is not? Well, the bill does more than allow a fact sheet. So it does do that, but it also creates a different regulatory approach for CITs. It creates a regulatory approach that would subject state chartered banks to SEC regulation. That's a different... scheme that exists now. The OCC already oversees that. Like I say, it's not that these things are unregulated. They're regulated well, and the SEC retains their jurisdiction over all these investment products. So she's kind of coming up with a different regulatory approach to say, well, I might be able to get okay with 403Bs if they did that. And it creates a three-year review process. So it's a way to defer, delay, and avoid implementation that fundamentally she's just opposed to the bill. So she's trying to obstruct the bill, and she's not going to succeed in stopping the bill, so she wants to sabotage it with this amendment. So I think it's a dilatory amendment. Amen. So whether the Rules Committee sees it as that or we simply vote no on the floor, I think it undermines the real purpose of the bill. I can just say that the teachers and nurses don't want their retirement plans being deregulated. When the House last considered this proposal, it was opposed by the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Nurses United, in fact, AARP, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, state securities regulators, the Consumer Federation of American Public Citizens, and on and on and on. All wrote letters opposing this bill in its current form. Thank you. I certainly share the interest in making sure we're not exposing our workers to unnecessary financial risk. But there's a lot in this bill, so I'm going to have to look at it further as we figure out where we go forward. But thank you. Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Langworthy, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. Davidson, I think it's great that we have a bill come out on a very bipartisan basis out of the Financial Services Committee. I don't have any unique questions, but is there any additional time you'd like to clarify anything? No, thanks, but I appreciate the opportunity. Very good. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. It came out in a bipartisan manner, but how many Democrats voted yes? By my count, more Democrats would have voted yes than no on the bill in the committee. Is that correct? Yeah, so there's 51 members of the committee, 15 Democrats voted for the bill, eight Democrats opposed the bill. So two to one, basically. Democrats in favor of the bill. Right, two to one Democrats in favor of the bill. Republicans, I think, were unanimous on the bill. And so I'm one of those who believe that the people who serve on the actual committees and jurisdictions know more about what's happening. Thank you Mr. Scott and I'll just say you know it's also noteworthy because you know we've all served on committees and you know there's some pressure to vote with the ranking member or the chairman of your committee. So, I think the real underlying thing is there are probably seven people that just wanted to join the ranking member. I can't speak for them, but you know there's some level of pressure to agree with your ranking member or your chairman. Here, two-to-one ratio, they said, no, I think this is common sense. We're just going to let these guys have access. Target date funds, which is what this is predominantly going to help with, correct? Right. That makes things very simple for the investor. I'm going to retire at this date and then. Those target dates, as the person gets close to retirement, they have less stock and more bonds. They become more conservative. As you said, you and your parents, you know, you move from growth to capital preservation. And it makes things very simple for people to understand. And I appreciate the work. I intend to vote for it. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Davidson has something else to add. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Jack. I likewise yield back. Thank you for your time. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. Without objection, the committee stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair. Oh, sorry. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee grant H.R. 1013, the Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational Institutions Act of 2025, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendments in the nature of substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill should be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit. Thank you very much. You have now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? I have two amendments, Madam Chair. The first amendment I have to the rule, I move the committee make an order of amendment number one, H.R. 1013, offered by Ranking Member Waters. Which would require the trustees of Collective Investment Trust to disclose a fun fact sheet about the financial product being offered, the 403B plans, which would include the fund's investment objectives, portfolio holdings, fees, compensation arrangements offered to intermediaries, use of leverage, and other information. And I hope that my colleagues will allow this to be made in order. I urge a yes vote, and I yield back the time. Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. No. No. In opinion, chair, the no's have it. The amendment's not agreed to. That's what we'll call the amendment here. The clerk will call the roll. Mrs. Fischbach? Yes. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mr. Langworthy? Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith? Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack? Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, aye. Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Gellin, aye. Ms. Gellin, aye. Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair, no. Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the total. Two yays, six nays. The no's have it. The amendments not agreed to. Mr. McGovern. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order of amendment number two to H.R. 1013 offered by Representative Lynch, which would revise the underlying bill so the exemptions created by the bill would apply to 403(b) plans. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the questions on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed, say no. No. In the opinion, Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is now agreed to. The clerk will call the roll. Mrs. Fischbach. Yes. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Couchman. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, aye. Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Gallin. Aye. Ms. Gallin, aye. Mr. Nagooz. Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. Madam Chair. Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. No. Thank Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the vote. Three yays, six nays. You sneaked in, Teresa. The no's have it, the amendment is not agreed to. Is there any other amendment or discussion? you. Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the motion from the gentleman from Virginia. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. No. In opinion, Chair, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. Mr. McGovern, request a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll. Mrs. Fischbach? Yes. Mrs. Fischbach, aye. Mr. Norman? Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mrs. Houchin, aye. Mr. Langworthy? Mr. Langworthy, aye. Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Griffith? Mr. Griffith, aye. Mr. Jack? Mr. Jack, aye. Mr. McGovern? No. Mr. McGovern, no. Mrs. Scanlon? Mrs. Scanlon, no. Mr. Neguse? Ms. Ledger-Fernandez? Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, no. Madam Chair? Aye. The ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to. Madam Chair, aye. The clerk will report the total. Representative Griffiths will be managing this rule for the majority. All And Mr. McGovern for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned. right.