Susan Muffley Act of 2025

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 988, I call up the bill (H.R. 2988) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to specify requirements concerning the consideration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary factors, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2988.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act, introduced by Representative Rick Allen, chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

At its core, this legislation is about one simple principle: Retirement savings should be managed to protect workers' futures and not to advance political agendas.

Over the past several years, the Biden administration pushed a rule that encouraged retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance--ESG--factors, when making investment decisions. That might sound harmless, but in practice, it shifts the focus away from what retirement investing is supposed to be about: maximizing returns and minimizing risk for workers and retirees.

Americans set aside money in their 401(k)'s and pension plans to retire with dignity. They do it so that they can pay their bills, cover medical costs, and support their families. They do not invest their hard-earned savings so that Federal bureaucrats can push ideological priorities.

That is exactly the concern here. ESG investing has become a tool for advancing a broader political agenda. Instead of asking: Is this the best investment for the worker, the ESG framework often asks: Does this investment align with certain social or environmental goals?

Those goals are not what ERISA was created to promote. ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, was established to ensure that fiduciaries act in the best interests of plan participants. It requires loyalty, prudence, and a clear focus on financial outcomes that workers rely on.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Biden-Harris rule is that it created permission and, in many cases, pressure for fiduciaries to prioritize ESG factors over the economic interests of participants. When that happens, retirement security is placed at risk.

ESG funds are often more costly and less transparent. In many cases, they underperform compared to traditional options. That means that workers may be paying more and getting less--less growth, less stability, and less certainty about their future.

This is not a theoretical issue. When a fiduciary chooses investments based on nonfinancial criteria, the person paying the price is not the bureaucrat in Washington or the corporate executive on a conference call. The person paying the price is the worker who depends on that retirement account to survive. That is why H.R. 2988 is needed.

Mr. Speaker, this bill restores the proper purpose of retirement investing: financial security. It makes clear that retirement plan decisions must be made based solely on economic factors--things like risk, return, liquidity, and diversification. It also addresses how fiduciaries use shareholder rights, like proxy voting.

Under current practices, some fiduciaries use the shares held in retirement plans to push political policies through proxy votes, whether or not those policies benefit the workers whose money is at stake.

H.R. 2988 stops that. It makes clear that exercising shareholder rights, including proxy votes, must be done in the economic interests of plan participants, not to advance radical political initiatives, not to appease advocacy groups, and not to satisfy trends in the corporate boardrooms.

In addition, the bill strengthens fairness and nondiscrimination in the selection of service providers. It states clearly that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin may not be considered when selecting fiduciaries, counsel, employees, or service providers for ERISA plans. Retirement plan service providers should be chosen on performance and price, not on ideology or race-based preference.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2988 increases transparency for workers. It includes a notice requirement for defined contribution plans that explains the difference between selecting investments chosen by ERISA fiduciaries and selecting investments through a brokerage window.

Why does that matter? It matters because many workers do not realize that when they move money into a brokerage window, they may be stepping outside the protections provided by plan fiduciaries. This bill ensures workers are informed and can make decisions with clarity. In short, H.R. 2988 is a course correction. It protects retirees from financial experimentation. It protects workers from political interference, and it reinforces the idea that retirement plans exist for one reason: to help Americans retire with stability and security.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2988 codifies the principles in the Trump Department of Labor's 2020 rule on retirement plan ESG investing.

Under the bill, as with the 2020 Trump rule, if a fiduciary finds that an ESG factor is a financial factor, then that factor can be considered when investing and exercising shareholder rights.

Nothing in H.R. 2988 prevents a fiduciary from appropriately considering any material risk of an investment. Like the 2020 Trump rule, H.R. 2988 recognizes that ESG factors can present an economic risk or opportunity, which qualified investment professionals would appropriately treat as material economic considerations under generally accepted investment principles.

H.R. 2988 neutrally applies these principles to all investment decisions.

To suggest this bill bars a fiduciary from appropriately considering any factor that may be material to investment is blatantly false. Unlike the Biden-Harris rule, this legislation ensures neutrality and prudent decisionmaking by fiduciaries.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made many claims about the supposed advantages of ESG investing.

Allow me to set the record straight. ESG funds have underperformed for years. According to Morningstar, ESG funds lagged the U.S. Market Index and the S&P 500 in 2023 and 2024. To make matters worse, ESG products charge higher fees to participants than traditional investment funds, which can significantly limit the growth of participants' retirement savings over time.

Finally, according to researchers at George Mason University, ESG funds expose workers and retirees to additional investment risk that traditional investments typically do not face. Increased costs, increased risk, and lackluster returns make for a bad cocktail.

Participants and beneficiaries of employer-sponsored retirement plans rely on the expertise of fiduciaries, who are required by law to act solely in the financial interests of participants. Weakening that expectation to advance partisan ideological objectives is wrong and hurts the safety and stability of Americans.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in response to my friends on the other side, many Democrats want to make race and sex the most important factors in choosing ERISA retirement plan service providers. In so doing, they are advocating for blatant race and sex discrimination, which we should all strongly oppose.

Discrimination is never justified, and the use of quotas is inherently discriminatory. ERISA plan service providers must be selected using a prudent and nondiscriminatory process. That is what H.R. 2988 requires.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), the chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee and the sponsor of this good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is vice chair of the Financial Services Committee and extremely well-versed in being able to deal with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting to a point, I think, that the old adage that everything has been said, just not everyone has said it yet. But with fear of offending that specific adage, I must respectfully, again, address the fact of the misconception that is being put forward about the Biden ESG rule as being neutral. That was, is, and always will be patently false.

The Biden-Harris ESG rule was explicitly intended to advance the left's radical climate and social agenda that harms Americans' retirement and long-term financial well-being. Even though the debate can be made about ESG issues, that is not what we want to see taking place for the best benefit of retirees.

This legislation is needed to combat the Biden rule which was issued in response to not one but two executive orders on climate change. The Biden Labor Department expressly stated that the intended effect of the rule is to loosen restrictions on fiduciaries and encourage them to consider ESG factors in their decisionmaking; to encourage them, not simply allow it, but to encourage them.

The Biden Labor Department's explanation of the rule lists ESG factors that it believes are relevant to investment performance, including impacts to climate change, corporate board composition, and workplace diversity and inclusion.

H.R. 2988 is essential to restore the neutrality of financial factor- only evaluation when investing to protect America's retirement savers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me close with this: H.R. 2988 is about keeping retirement investing focused on what matters--protecting workers and retirees.

The Biden-Harris ESG rule encouraged fiduciaries to consider political and ideological factors in retirement plans, even when that could increase risk and reduce returns. That is unacceptable.

Representative Rick Allen's bill restores the ERISA standard by requiring that investment decisions be based only on economic factors. It ensures proxy voting and shareholder rights are exercised solely in the financial interest of plan participants, not to push radical policies. It bans discrimination in selecting plan fiduciaries and service providers based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. It almost sounds American in its idea. It improves transparency by requiring plans to explain the difference between fiduciary-selected investments and brokerage windows.

This bill puts retirement savers first, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act. This bill is premised on the Republicans' mistaken belief that they know best when it comes to investing workers' retirement savings.

Under the present law, the retirement plan fiduciary is required to make prudent investment decisions in the best interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. The bill codifies two rules from the first Trump administration that impose first-of-their-kind restrictions on plan fiduciaries' abilities to consider what are called environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, factors when making investment decisions and exercise shareholder rights.

The appropriate course of action is to permit fiduciaries to consider ESG factors so long as they don't diminish investment returns. As we know, such factors, whether it be sea level rise or poor corporate governance, are relevant to a company's performance. Considering whether a real estate investment will literally be underwater because of sea level rise is not ideology. It is sensible for plan fiduciaries to be permitted to consider such factors and to be able to adopt them if they don't reduce investment returns. That is precisely what the rule from the Biden administration permitted.

Predictably, the Trump administration is walking away from that rule, and now the House is continuing to go in the wrong direction. For example, H.R. 2988 will impose unnecessary barriers to considering things like sea level rise. The supporters are making up some risk, suggesting that some of these funds may be worse than others. I think the studies have shown that they are as good or better, in fact, than others. Meanwhile, the Trump administration appears to be poised to green light what are clearly consensus-held risky investments such as cryptocurrency and put those in retirement plans. That makes no sense at all.

Finally, H.R. 2988 would undermine the worthwhile efforts to increase diversity among asset managers. There are about $82 trillion in financial assets in retirement funds. Only 1.4 percent of those assets are managed by women or minority firms. Women and minorities, represented by two-thirds of the population, they are managing 1.4 percent of the assets.

Now, apparently that creates a problem, and the problem is: How did they get the 1.4 percent? How did the good old boys lose 1.4 percent? So they are going to change the rules to limit access to women- and minority-owned firms. This bill would needlessly undermine what little progress has been made and actually raise questions about what problem we are trying to solve.

We should be trusting our professionals bound by law, not House Republicans to make sound decisions about Americans' retirement savings.

For those reasons, I oppose the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record links to letters in opposition to H.R. 2988: One led by the Americans for Financial Reform and signed by dozens of organizations representing labor, civil rights, environmental, and other relevant policy issues; another from the AFL- CIO; a letter from SIRES; another letter signed by the National Employment Law Project, the Economic Policy Institute, and the National Partnership for Women and Families; one letter from SEIU; and one letter from the U.S. Sustainable Investment Forum. The link is: https:/ /house.app.box.com/s/xpixugm5qpckl4kxrc4h4u55i3to8roy

Mr. Speaker, right now across the country, workers are struggling to pay their bills and meet basic needs, let alone save for retirement. It is incredibly hard for workers to do much on their own for retirement when, according to the Federal Reserve, many would struggle to come up with the money to finance an unexpected $400 expense, such as a car repair or medical bill.

That being the case, it should not be controversial for retirement plan professionals to appropriately weigh environmental, social, and governance factors in their clients' best interests. H.R. 2988 would restrict the fiduciary's ability to consider all relevant factors that might affect investment decisions to the detriment of retirees.

Of course, it has been pointed out that some ESG funds do better, some do worse, just like all other categories of funds. The committee chair's opening statement suggested that ESG funds don't do as well as the S&P 500. The fact is, most funds don't do as well as the S&P 500 index funds, but the other funds are not restricted. A consideration, not a mandate, of ESG factors ought to be allowed.

They said the present law is not neutral. This law is not neutral because if you want to consider environmental possibilities and concerns or governance or other factors like that, extra paperwork is needed, and it is much more difficult to have those considered.

Mr. Speaker, the professionals ought to be able to decide what are the best investments for the retirees, not politicians. For that reason, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment appears to require GAO to submit a report to Congress that compares the returns generated through the brokerage windows with those of other investments available through retirement plans.

Brokerage windows allow plan participants to invest outside the menu of designated investment alternatives available under their plan. Such investments can include mutual funds and, in some cases, individual stocks and bonds.

Of the amendments that were filed at Rules Committee, my Democratic colleagues and I would have preferred one from the ranking member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, Mr. DeSaulnier of California, to be made in order. His amendment would have fixed the fundamental flaw of division A of the bill, which simply would have ensured that plan fiduciaries would be permitted to consider ESG investments if they can be done without sacrificing investment returns.

Although I do not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, I do have a couple of observations about it.

First, the effect of this amendment could be accomplished by just writing a letter to GAO, along with the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. That would be faster than sticking it on this bill and hoping the bill passes.

We may draw the conclusion that this amendment was made in order so that the Republican majority could say they have an open process on this flawed bill and avoid yet another criticism of all of their closed rules.

With respect to the substance of the amendment, I am concerned that it needlessly pits two things that are not in conflict, that is, brokerage windows and the plan's designated investments.

My colleagues know, in 2021, the ERISA Advisory Council examined brokerage windows. They noted that fewer than one-third of the retirement plans even offer a brokerage window, and roughly 2 percent of plan participants with access to one actually choose it. When you look at the average brokerage window account, it exceeded over $300,000, which is far greater than what many Americans have in their total retirement funds.

While few people are using the brokerage windows, the ones that do may be interested in exploring funds or stocks that are not affected by their plan. Of those mutual funds that are offered, some may be ESG- themed.

If that is the concern of my colleagues, and if they are banking on the GAO to produce a report that shows ESG-themed funds offered in a brokerage account will underperform, they may be disappointed because researchers at New York University noted that ``empirical studies and meta-analyses consistently demonstrate a positive relationship between ESG integration and financial performance.''

GAO itself has already examined this issue in the past and stated: ``The vast majority, 88 percent, of the scenarios in studies we reviewed . . . reported finding a neutral or positive relationship between the use of ESG information in investment management and financial returns.''

Finally, the gentleman's amendment must be considered alongside the House Republicans' efforts to decimate GAO's budget. Last summer, House Republicans proposed cutting the GAO budget by 50 percent. Fortunately, that was restored in the final version, but it is curious that the House Republicans now want to give the GAO more work after they were so intent on cutting its budget.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it makes much difference whether it passes or not, but I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Michigan granting me a little time here. I was not planning on speaking on this. I am actually down here for an amendment, but let me clean it up.

Mr. Speaker, the hot garbage that we are hearing right now from the other side prompts me to address this. I am vice chair of the Financial Services Committee. One of our speakers earlier serves on that committee where we regularly cross swords philosophically about what the role of ESG is. Environmental, social, and governance has been a hot topic, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that.

When he is trying to compare what we are talking about today, regarding what we are dealing with with some of the other retirement plans and publicly traded companies and what the SEC

has been doing, we are not talking apples and oranges. We are talking apples and pinecones. They might both grow on trees, but they are not anything like what the reality is.

He is talking about being a CEO. One of our colleagues was talking about being a CEO of a wind company. Mr. Speaker, that is, by definition, one of those ESG companies. When he is talking about pecuniary questions not being allowed to be asked, that is completely false. Materiality is the watchword.

What we saw under the last administration, by the way, is they blew through that legal definition which was from 1976. Thurgood Marshall is the one who developed the materiality definition by law.

They blew through that and said: Do you know what, these issues are so important to us that we are going to just set the law aside and say: No, you must have an environmental or social or governance lens with which to drive this through.

That has nothing to do with return. It has nothing to do with return. What we have seen is that the activist investors who have gotten involved, who have driven these, who have put these shareholder proposals in place and have put these requests in place, don't care about return. That isn't their goal. Their goal is social change.

What we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is over the years we have seen time and time again the cudgel of government and the cudgel of regulators being used to pound business and investment into what they think is the right place. What it has done is actually cheated those who are dependent upon the return, whether it is a firefighter or a teacher.

By the way, in CalPERS, they have actually extracted themselves from a number of these ESG programs and portfolios.

Why is that?

It is because they were having lawsuits from their own members demanding more return and less concern.

What I would just say is that the Financial Services Committee put together an ESG work group that I had the pleasure of chairing, and we came up with a report.

I will wrap this up.

Mr. Speaker, what that report identified was that what we are seeing is materiality. By the way, material issues are legally required to be disclosed for a publicly traded company or for any of these investment folks. So nobody is trying to hide things. In fact, they are legally required to disclose any of those material issues that may affect stock price.

What we are seeing here is that the gentleman from Illinois and others have argued that all questions regarding the environment or social issues are somehow material.

Mr. Speaker, it simply isn't true. We have to put the investor--that retiree, that person who is desperate for returns so that they can retire--first, not second, behind social issues that bureaucrats have decided is the primary goal.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment requires the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to submit a report to Congress comparing brokerage window investments in the context of defined contribution plans.

The GAO report will compare investment returns generated through participant-controlled brokerage windows and similar arrangements with the investment returns generated by investments selected and monitored by plan fiduciaries.

What does that mean in plain English? It means basically, do you want to be involved in the decisions surrounding your investments?

Most defined contribution plans, like 401(k) plans allow participants to direct their investments from a menu of options selected by investment fiduciaries, who are the experts. Those are

the professionals who have a legal obligation to maximize return for the investor.

Plan fiduciaries go through an extensive selection and monitoring process, evaluating fees, risks, performance, and how each option compares to available alternatives.

If the plan fiduciary places pooled asset funds, like mutual funds, on the investment menu, the fees are almost always lower, which bolsters the fund's net return, meaning more money in the pockets of the investor.

Brokerage window participants are bypassing the investments selected by the plan's investment fiduciaries and self-selecting investments for their retirement savings.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about whether you want to be involved in your own retirement savings decisions. I do, by the way.

If the participant purchases a mutual fund through a brokerage window, the participant would likely be subject to the highest retail share class fee for that mutual fund. This amendment calls for the GAO to study whether the net returns generated through brokerage windows are comparable to those generated by the investments selected by plan fiduciaries.

We have had, Mr. Speaker, quite a discussion about ESG and the overarching bill. The point that I had been trying to make earlier was that materiality and return should be the watchword. It is the legal requirement, by the way, but we have seen a warping of government and the regulations surrounding it to try to pound these investments into a social circle that some, not all of us, believe is the right direction to go.

Here is what I want to do, Mr. Speaker. I want to maximize return for that firefighter, that teacher, that police officer. I want to make sure that those who traditionally have not had choice in how they are going to invest their retirement savings get some selection in that through approved funds, through fiduciary responsibilities of professionals. This is the right thing to do and the right direction to go.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will close with this. I appreciate where the gentleman is coming from. This has been a long debate regarding some of these issues surrounding what I believe is the core issue. I believe the core issue, Mr. Speaker, is that it is time for us to put retirees first, not second, in investment decisions.

The gentleman was talking about it in ESG funds. I have no problem with the existence of an ESG fund. If someone, for whatever personal reason, decides that they want to invest in a fund that does not have holdings in oil or in pharmaceuticals or something along those lines, that is quite all right, but, Mr. Speaker, it has to be voluntary. It has to be voluntary.

It is okay to invest in that ESG fund, but it is not okay, Mr. Speaker, to force someone into that ESG fund who is then going to suffer for that decision because of a lack of return.

The gentleman cited one study, and I am actually familiar with the study. I can show you five studies for every one that is opposed to this notion that ESG funds are more expensive and have a lower return. At the end of the day, it needs to be about choice for those retirees and their opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 116: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 151: Ms. Van Duyne.

H.R. 255: Mr. Gill of Texas, Mr. Self, and Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 404: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 429: Mr. Suozzi.

H.R. 479: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 556: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 574: Mr. Van Drew, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Stauber, and

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 628: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 659: Mr. Soto, Mrs. Ramirez, and Mr. Garcia of

California.

H.R. 740: Ms. Malliotakis and Mr. Kustoff.

H.R. 802: Ms. Bonamici.

H.R. 833: Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona, Mr. Moran, Mr. Barr, and

Mr. Burlison.

H.R. 842: Mr. Kiley of California and Ms. Stansbury.

H.R. 909: Mr. Subramanyam and Ms. Schakowsky.

H.R. 914: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 942: Mr. Bresnahan and Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 956: Mr. Biggs of Arizona.

H.R. 1004: Ms. Elfreth and Ms. Kelly of Illinois.

H.R. 1024: Mr. Moran.

H.R. 1041: Mr. Ezell, Mr. Hurd of Colorado, Mr. Cline, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 1086: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 1106: Mr. Himes.

H.R. 1151: Mr. Rose.

H.R. 1181: Ms. Fedorchak.

H.R. 1232: Mr. James and Mr. Pfluger.

H.R. 1241: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 1262: Mrs. Hinson and Mr. Garamendi.

H.R. 1286: Mrs. Fischbach.

H.R. 1329: Mr. Burchett and Mr. McCaul.

H.R. 1330: Mr. Suozzi.

H.R. 1357: Mr. Morelle.

H.R. 1378: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky and Mr. Garbarino.

H.R. 1400: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 1415: Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Weber of Texas.

H.R. 1505: Mr. Min.

H.R. 1509: Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Lee of Florida,

and Mr. Fry.

H.R. 1521: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 1539: Mr. Bilirakis.

H.R. 1636: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.

H.R. 1659: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1676: Mr. Haridopolos.

H.R. 1682: Mr. James.

H.R. 1695: Mr. Rutherford.

H.R. 1709: Mr. Nunn of Iowa.

H.R. 1775: Ms. Stansbury.

H.R. 1822: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 1868: Ms. Williams of Georgia.

H.R. 1882: Mr. Gill of Texas.

H.R. 1909: Mr. Wittman.

H.R. 1918: Ms. McBride.

H.R. 2028: Ms. Van Duyne and Ms. McBride.

H.R. 2033: Ms. Malliotakis.

H.R. 2109: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 2126: Mr. Brecheen and Mr. James.

H.R. 2145: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 2160: Mr. Schmidt.

H.R. 2189: Mr. Fry.

H.R. 2199: Ms. McBride.

H.R. 2230: Ms. Malliotakis.

H.R. 2253: Mr. Frost.

H.R. 2290: Mr. Garamendi.

H.R. 2294: Ms. McBride.

H.R. 2311: Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

H.R. 2315: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 2355: Mr. Mann.

H.R. 2395: Ms. Hageman.

H.R. 2514: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 2531: Mr. Larson of Connecticut and Ms. Stansbury.

H.R. 2536: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 2538: Ms. Stansbury and Mr. Graves.

H.R. 2550: Mr. Clyburn.

H.R. 2599: Mr. Issa.

H.R. 2623: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 2687: Ms. Pelosi.

H.R. 2705: Mr. Collins and Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 2729: Mr. Stauber, Mr. Rose, Mrs. Radewagen, and Mr.

Peters.

H.R. 2736: Mrs. Sykes.

H.R. 2753: Ms. Chu, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Goodlander,

Mr. Meeks, Mr. Courtney, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Dexter, and Mr.

Pocan.

H.R. 2761: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 2767: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 2781: Mr. Bishop.

H.R. 2788: Mr. Cohen.

H.R. 2841: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 2904: Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.

H.R. 2941: Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

H.R. 2969: Mr. Cline.

H.R. 2979: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3033: Mr. Pfluger.

H.R. 3036: Mr. Takano.

H.R. 3043: Mr. McGuire.

H.R. 3048: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3098: Mr. Correa.

H.R. 3107: Mr. Bishop.

H.R. 3112: Ms. Perez, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick,

and Mr. Sherman.

H.R. 3128: Ms. Sewell.

H.R. 3131: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.

H.R. 3142: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 3177: Mr. Steube.

H.R. 3179: Ms. Van Duyne and Mr. Self.

H.R. 3195: Mr. Rogers of Alabama.

H.R. 3199: Ms. Omar, Ms. Meng, Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania,

Mr. Mullin, and Mr. Sherman.

H.R. 3204: Mr. Neguse.

H.J. Res. 38: Mr. Steube.

H. Res. 155: Ms. Pingree.

H. Res. 166: Ms. Norton.

H. Res. 267: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Garcia of

California, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. McClellan, Mr.

Bacon, Mr. Torres of New York, Mrs. Hayes, Ms. Ansari, Ms.

Tlaib, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Titus, Mr.

Soto, and Mr. Fields.

H. Res. 364: Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Ms. Malliotakis,

Mr. Fallon, and Mr. Kustoff.

H. Res. 380: Mr. Pocan, Mr. Thanedar, Ms. McCollum, and Ms.

Tokuda.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I rise in opposition to this bill, which will only hurt the retirement savings of millions of Americans.

Our Republican colleagues are once again prioritizing culture wars over working people and threatening the retirement savings of nurses, teachers, police officers, and healthcare workers, who are just trying to save for their future with peace of mind.

The bill before us today injects politics into investment decisions that should be guided by sound financial judgment.

Let me be clear. Environmental, social, and governance risks are material and pecuniary, and companies that adopt thoughtful policies on these risks outperform those that don't over the long term.

If an oil company is cutting corners, and it leads to a spill that is expensive to the company, that hurts shareholders. That hurts people who are saving for retirement. That is a failure to manage an environmental risk.

If a company maintains a culture in the office that allows rampant discrimination that causes lawsuits that are expensive to the company, that is a social factor. That is a material risk.

If executive pay is structured in a way where it is not tied to shareholder performance, that is a risk.

As a former State treasurer, I know that ignoring these risks does not make them disappear.

By the way, the proxy voting process is an important way for shareholders to tell executives at companies when they think that something needs to change. They are nonbinding. What this bill would do is make it harder for shareholders to vote to put even nonbinding items in front of a board to consider.

I have heard the other side say that this bill does not preclude ESG factors from being considered if they are material, but that is not true in practice. What will happen in practice is that SEC bureaucrats and political appointees will get to choose what is material and what is not.

Any time an executive, a corporate executive, doesn't like what a shareholder proposal is about, they can go to the SEC and say: ``Keep this off the ballot. I don't want to see it.'' It will be up to those bureaucrats and political appointees to decide what is material and what is not.

How about we trust the investors? How about we trust the people who are actually doing the work? How about we trust the plan participants, the workers, and the retirees? Anyone who has a 401(k) or an IRA will tell you that they can go on the website and pick from a range of different plans based on what they think is a good idea for them. Why don't we trust them instead of trusting bureaucrats and political appointees to make decisions for everybody else?

Understand why we are here and who this bill helps. This bill helps corporate executives who do not want to be held accountable by their own shareholders.

Mr. Speaker, this bill helps executives who do not want to be held accountable by their own shareholders for material ESG risks.

It all comes down to time horizons, as Mr. Casten said. When I was State treasurer, I had 60,000 people who were relying on me for their retirement. I had people who were 90- or 100-year-old retirees, and I had first-year teachers who were 23 years old. I owed just as much of a fiduciary duty to those 23-year-olds as the 90-year-olds.

So long-term factors and ESG factors matter even when corporate executives who are focused on the short term don't care about them.

This bill claims to be about free markets. It is the opposite. It is taking choice away from investors and away from retirees and plan participants and putting it in the hands of bureaucrats and political appointees.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.