2020: Schweikert Voted For Requiring Public Companies To Disclose Their Ties To Forced Labor Camps In China's Xinjiang. In September 2020, Schweikert voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require publicly traded companies to disclose information to the Securities and Exchange Commission on their supply chains with regard to any goods sourced from the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region of China. Specifically, it would require the SEC to issue rules, within 180 days of enactment, requiring security issuers filing annual reports or proxy statements to disclose whether the issuer, or any affiliate, engaged with another entity to import manufactured goods -- including electronics, food products, textiles, shoes and teas -- that originated in or contain materials sourced in the Xinjiang region and whether any such goods originated in forced labor camps. It would also require companies that imported such goods to disclose the extent of the commercial activity, gross revenue, and net profits related to the goods and whether they intend to continue importing the goods. It would require the SEC to make such disclosed information available on its public website and submit an annual report to Congress on compliance." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 253-163. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 210, 9/30/20; Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/20; Congressional Actions, H.R.6270]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Appropriating $2.2 Billion To The Securities And Exchange Commission For FY 2023. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, which would "provide $2.2 billion for the Securities and Exchange Commission." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. Congress passed and signed into law the FY 2023 Budget through H.R. 2617. [House Vote 383, 7/20/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/20/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8294]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Funding For The SEC By $50 Million. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase[d] funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission by $50 million." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 128 to 294. [House Vote 362, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1231; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Funding For The Securities And Exchange Commission, As Part Of Rep. Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024, which, according to the House Budget Committee's Fiscal Year 2015 "Path to Prosperity," "Duplication, hidden subsidies, and large bureaucracies are symptomatic of many agencies within Function 370. For example: The Securities and Exchange Commission. As of March 2013, the SEC had 3,950 full-time employees, and an average salary across the agency of over $155,000. SEC's budget has risen by more than 45 percent since fiscal year 2007. If the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request were granted, SEC's budget would grow by another 26 percent in just one fiscal year. [...] This resolution questions the premise that more funding for the SEC means better, smarter regulation. Adding reams of regulations to the books and scores of regulators to the payrolls will not provide greater transparency, consumer protection, and enforcement for increasingly complex markets. Instead, the SEC should streamline and make more efficient its operations and resources; defray taxpayer expenses by designating self-regulatory organizations (subject to SEC oversight) to perform needed examinations of investment advisors; and enhance collaboration with other agencies, such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to reduce duplication, waste, and overlap in supervision. Ultimately, the committees of jurisdiction will establish the specific policies." The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; House Budget Committee, 4/1/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
CQ: GOP Has Waged "Stealthy" Campaign "To Gut" Dodd-Frank Act, Including Blocking Efforts To Provide The SEC And Other Financial Regulators With Significant Funding Increases To Handle Their Expanded Responsibilities Under The Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "That's not to say Dodd-Frank [...] isn't a top GOP target --- just that it hasn't faced such a frontal assault. Perhaps wary of being tarred as Wall Street lackeys, Republicans have sought to gut Dodd-Frank through more stealthy maneuvers, chipping away at key provisions and seeking to block the funding that regulators say is needed to implement the law. And like the troubled rollout of the health care overhaul, Dodd-Frank has faced the GOP's legislative arrows during a prolonged and sometimes difficult implementation. [...] Democrats also have been stymied in their efforts to significantly increase funding for regulators tasked with implementing the law. The CFTC and SEC were given hefty new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank, including «regulation» of the $700 trillion derivatives market, and Democrats called for sizable budget boosts in response. Republicans argued regulators should better use the resources they've got. With control of the House, Republicans have largely been able to win the day on the spending front. In 2011, following Dodd-Frank's enactment, Obama proposed providing $1.43 billion to the SEC, a request that was quickly rebuffed. Three years later, even after modest increases, the SEC's budget still stands short of that figure, at $1.35 billion. At a hearing last week on the law's anniversary, former Rep. Barney Frank, a co-author of the law, decried the funding challenges faced by regulators." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/30/14]
Budget Resolution Aimed To Limit Federal Government's Role In Financial Markets. According to the House Budget Committee's Fiscal Year 2015 "Path to Prosperity," the House Republican budget resolution "aims to limit and reform programs in this function to reduce spending; to limit the federal government's role in housing-finance, financial, and telecommunications markets; and to curtail the corporate welfare that distorts and misdirects the flow of capital in the free market." [House Budget Committee, 4/1/14]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Modifying The Employee Compensation Disclosure Threshold. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for modifying the Employee Compensation Disclosure Threshold. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have "increase[ed] from $5 million to $10 million annually the threshold of securities that a privately held company can sell for employee compensation. It also indexes the threshold to inflation, requiring that it be adjusted every five years." The underlying "modifie[d] numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 271 to 154. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Increasing To $10 Million From $5 Million The Amount Of Securities A Company Can Sell For Employee Compensation. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for increasing to $10 million the amount of securities a company can sell for employee compensation. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill modifies numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth. Among its provisions, it exempts certain end users of derivatives from margin calls and allows issuers of securities to submit a disclosures report aimed at increasing investor comprehension. It also exempts certain entities from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements, and includes several provisions to help emerging growth companies raise capital and grow. [...] the bill increases from $5 million to $10 million annually the threshold of securities that a privately held company can sell for employee compensation. It also indexes the threshold to inflation, requiring that it be adjusted every five years. (The JOBS Act allowed employee compensation securities to require fewer disclosures than other securities; however, these provisions did not include SEC Rule 701, which requires the disclosure of financials, future plans and capital expenditures for privately held companies that sell more than $5 million worth of securities for employee compensation." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority to succeed. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 276 to 146. The bill later came up for a vote and passed the House 271 to 154. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 9, 1/7/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Modifying SEC Disclosure Forms. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for modifying SEC disclosure forms. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have "direct[ed] the SEC to allow issuers of securities to submit a summary page on their Form 10-K disclosures, with cross-references to the contents of the 10-K report. (The typical 10-K filing is several hundred pages, making it difficult for investors to find information. A summary page would make it easier to find the information in the larger form.). The measure directs the SEC to revise disclosure forms so that they are scaled for the smaller size of emerging growth companies and for smaller securities issuers. The SEC also must conduct a study of disclosure forms, and make changes to simplify and modernize disclosure rules." The underlying "modifie[d] numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 271 to 154. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Directing The SEC To Allow Securities Issuers To Submit A Summary Page For A 10-K Report. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for directing the SEC to allow securities issuers to submit a summary page for a 10-K report. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill modifies numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth. Among its provisions, it exempts certain end users of derivatives from margin calls and allows issuers of securities to submit a disclosures report aimed at increasing investor comprehension. It also exempts certain entities from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements, and includes several provisions to help emerging growth companies raise capital and grow. [...] The bill directs the SEC to allow issuers of securities to submit a summary page on their Form 10-K disclosures, with cross-references to the contents of the 10-K report. (The typical 10-K filing is several hundred pages, making it difficult for investors to find information. A summary page would make it easier to find the information in the larger form.) The measure directs the SEC to revise disclosure forms so that they are scaled for the smaller size of emerging growth companies and for smaller securities issuers. The SEC also must conduct a study of disclosure forms, and make changes to simplify and modernize disclosure rules." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority to succeed. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 276 to 146. The bill later came up for a vote and passed the House 271 to 154. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 9, 1/7/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Modifying Certain SEC Requirements For Registration Involving Savings And Loans Companies, Mergers And Acquisitions Brokers And SBIC Advisors. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for modifying certain SEC requirements for registration involving savings and loans companies Mergers and Acquisitions Brokers and SBIC Advisors. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have "The bill exempts certain entities from having to register with the SEC; under the law, registering with the SEC forces financial institutions and brokers to comply with numerous other financial reporting requirements and regulations. [...] The measure increases the thresholds at which a savings and loan company must register with the SEC or may deregister with the SEC, equalizing them to the thresholds set by the JOBS Act (PL 112-106) for banks and bank holding companies. [...] The bill exempts from SEC registration mergers and acquisitions (M&A) brokers that assist in the transfer of ownership of small, privately owned businesses. [...] The bill exempts advisers to small-business investment companies (SBICs) from SEC registration." The underlying "modifie[d] numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 271 to 154. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Limiting The SEC's Ability To Claw Back Ill-Gotten Gains From Securities Law Violators. In November 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modify the statute of limitations applied to Securities and Exchange Commission disgorgement cases seeking the return of illicit funds gained in violation of securities law. Specifically, it would establish a 14-year statute of limitations for such cases, as well as for relief sought by the SEC through injunctions. The bill would also require the SEC to submit a report to Congress on enforcement actions brought by the SEC in the ten years after enactment." The vote was a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House agreed to the motion and passed the bill by a vote of 314-95. The bill was never taken up in the Senate. [House Vote 627, 11/18/19; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.4344]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Increase The Amount Of Securities That Privately Held Companies Can Sell For Employee Compensation Without Needing To Disclose And To Require The SEC To Review Existing Regulations And Determine Whether They Are Ineffective. In February 2016, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "direct[ed] the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to increase from $5 million to $10 million the annual amount of securities that privately-held companies can sell for employee compensation without needing to disclose certain information to investors. As amended, the bill would [have] require[d] the SEC to review its existing significant regulations, determine whether they are outmoded, ineffective or excessively burdensome, and modify or repeal such rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 265 to 159. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 61, 2/3/16; Congressional Quarterly, 2/3/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1675]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Require The Securities And Exchange Commission To Analyze How Its New And Existing Regulations Affected The Economy. In May 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct cost-benefit analysis of its regulations and clarify why new rules are warranted. It would [have] direct[ed] the SEC to consider the cost of not regulating and the impact of proposed regulation on small businesses, investor choice and securities market liquidity. It would [have] require[d] the SEC to explain rules, including changes prompted by consumer group or industry comments, and to periodically review existing rules and modify or repeal those found ineffective or excessively burdensome. As amended it would [have] mandate[d] that assessment plans required by the bill include an analysis of public and private sector jobs added or lost as a result of the regulation." The House passed the bill by a vote of 235 to 161; it was then sent to the Senate, which, as of mid-December 2013, has taken no substantive action on it. [House Vote 160, 5/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/17/13; Congressional Actions, H.R.1062]
The Bill Would Also Require The SEC To Review Its Current Regulations And Alter Those It Finds To Be Stale, Ineffective, Not Strong Enough Or Overly Burdensome. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires the SEC to conduct reviews of its existing regulations to determine whether any are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient or excessively burdensome, and to subsequently modify or repeal regulations based on those reviews. The SEC's initial reviews must occur within one year of enactment, and then every five years thereafter." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/13/13]
President Obama's 2011 Executive Order Requiring Agencies To Conduct Cost-Benefit Analyses Did Not Cover The SEC, As The Agency Is Independent. According to Congressional Quarterly, "President Barack Obama issued an executive order in 2011 that requires agencies to conduct cost-benefit analyses. But because the SEC is an independent agency, it is not required to follow the order and instead conducts such reviews voluntarily." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Bill's Supporters Said It Would Apply Obama's Executive Order To The SEC In Order To Reduce Costly And Unnecessary Regulations That Hinder Economic Growth And Job Creation. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Proponents of the bill say the measure simply codifies President Obama's executive order regarding cost-benefit analyses of regulations and ensures that it applies to the SEC. They say the SEC has often failed to adequately take into account the economic costs of its rules, as is required under current law, which has resulted in court rulings against certain SEC regulations. They argue that reducing unnecessary and costly regulation is especially important now, during a time of slow economic growth, since excessive regulation on companies stifles economic growth and job creation." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/13/13]
Supporters Said Mandating The Analyses Would Ease Regulatory Burdens, Hold The SEC Accountable, And Make Rules More Transparent And Accessible. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans say that mandating the analyses would ease regulatory burdens and hold the agency accountable. They trumpeted one provision of the bill that would require the SEC to ensure that all regulations are 'accessible, consistent, written in plain language and easy to understand,' saying it would make the rules more transparent. 'The question is not about deregulation and regulation,' said Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. 'The question is about dumb regulation and smart regulation, and smart regulations require rulemakers to understand the cost of their rules to the average hardworking American family.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
The White House Opposed The Bill, Arguing Its "Burdensome And Disruptive New Procedures" Would Impair The SEC's Ability To Protect Investors And Ensure Well-Running Markets. According to a Statement of Administration Policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget, "[T]he Administration opposes passage of H.R. 1062. By adding burdensome and disruptive new procedures, H.R. 1062 would impede the ability of the SEC to protect investors, maintain orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. The Administration believes in the value of cost-benefit analysis. However, H.R. 1062 would add onerous procedures that would threaten the implementation of key reforms related to financial stability and investor protection. H.R. 1062 would direct the SEC to conduct time- and resource-intensive assessments after it adopts or amends major regulations before the impacts of the regulations may have occurred or be known. The bill would add analytical requirements that could result in unnecessary delays in the rulemaking process, thereby undermining the ability of the SEC to effectively execute its statutory mandates." [Office of Management and Budget, 5/15/13]
Opponents Said The Bill Was An Attempt To Delay Implementation Of The Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Overhaul. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats contend that the bill is simply the latest GOP attempt to delay implementation of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul (PL 111-203). 'The Republican bill comes in the guise of requiring the SEC to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of regulations, but it is really a prescription of paralysis of the SEC's ability to protect our investors and our markets,' said New York Democrat Carolyn B. Maloney, who chairs the Financial Services subcommittee with jurisdiction over capital markets." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Opponents Said The SEC Already Must Analyze Economic Effects Of Proposed Regulations, And That The Bill Would Tilt SEC Rules To Favor Businesses' Interests. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill argue it would establish unnecessary new requirements on an agency that is already stretched thin, and that the SEC already is required to conduct economic analysis of proposed regulations. They say the bill's true purpose may be to prevent the SEC from implementing Dodd-Frank regulations that are opposed by Wall Street and financial institutions. In addition to diverting resources from the SEC's mandate to enforce investor protections, they contend that the bill would skew SEC rules so they favor the interests of businesses over investors." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/13/13]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Modifying Numerous Provisions From Dodd-Frank, Including Modifying Requirements For SEC Registration. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill modifying numerous provisions from Dodd-Frank, a law enacted in response to the recent financial crisis, including modifying savings and loan registration requirements for SEC registrations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill modifies numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth. Among its provisions, it exempts certain end users of derivatives from margin calls and allows issuers of securities to submit a disclosures report aimed at increasing investor comprehension. It also exempts certain entities from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements, and includes several provisions to help emerging growth companies raise capital and grow. [... ]The bill exempts certain entities from having to register with the SEC; under the law, registering with the SEC forces financial institutions and brokers to comply with numerous other financial reporting requirements and regulations. [...] The measure increases the thresholds at which a savings and loan company must register with the SEC or may deregister with the SEC, equalizing them to the thresholds set by the JOBS Act (PL 112-106) for banks and bank holding companies. Specifically, it increases from 500 to 2,000 shareholders the threshold at which a savings and loan company must register with the SEC, and it allows savings and loans to deregister if their shareholder base falls below 1,200 (versus 300 in current law)." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority to succeed. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 276 to 146. The bill later came up for a vote and passed the House 271 to 154. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 9, 1/7/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Modifying Numerous Provisions From Dodd-Frank, Including Modifying Requirements For SEC Registration For Mergers And Acquisition Brokers. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill modifying numerous provisions from Dodd-Frank, a law enacted in response to the recent financial crisis, and modified SEC registration requirements for merger and acquisition brokers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill modifies numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth. Among its provisions, it exempts certain end users of derivatives from margin calls and allows issuers of securities to submit a disclosures report aimed at increasing investor comprehension. It also exempts certain entities from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements, and includes several provisions to help emerging growth companies raise capital and grow. [...] The bill exempts certain entities from having to register with the SEC; under the law, registering with the SEC forces financial institutions and brokers to comply with numerous other financial reporting requirements and regulations. [...] The bill exempts from SEC registration mergers and acquisitions (M&A) brokers that assist in the transfer of ownership of small, privately owned businesses. " The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority to succeed. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 276 to 146. The bill later came up for a vote and passed the House 271-154. The Senate has yet to take action on the bill. [House Vote 9, 1/7/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Modifying Numerous Provisions From Dodd-Frank, Including Exempting Small-Business Investment Companies From SEC Registration. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill modifying numerous provisions from Dodd-Frank, a law enacted in response to the recent financial crisis, and exempted Small-Business Investment companies from SEC registration. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill modifies numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth. Among its provisions, it exempts certain end users of derivatives from margin calls and allows issuers of securities to submit a disclosures report aimed at increasing investor comprehension. It also exempts certain entities from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements, and includes several provisions to help emerging growth companies raise capital and grow. [...] The bill exempts advisers to small-business investment companies (SBICs) from SEC registration. " The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority to succeed. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 276 to 146. The bill later came up for a vote and passed the House 271-154. The Senate has yet to take action on the bill. [House Vote 9, 1/7/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Exempting Mergers & Acquisitions Brokers That Assist In The Transfer Of Ownership Of Small, Privately Owned Business From Registering With The SEC. In September 2014, Schweikert voted for exempting mergers & acquisitions brokers that assist in the transfer of ownership of small, privately owned business from registering with the SEC. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure includes the provisions of HR 2274, which exempts mergers and acquisitions (M&A) brokers that assist in the transfer of ownership of small, privately owned businesses from Securities and Exchange Commission registration." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
2019: Schweikert Voted For Expanding Protections For Whistleblowers In Relation To Securities Law. In July 2019, Schweikert voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "expand the definition of 'whistleblower' in relation to securities law to include individuals who report potential misconduct regarding securities law to their employer or another employee within their company -- including individuals who do not notify the Securities and Exchange Commission of such misconduct." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House agreed to the motion and passed the bill by a vote of 410-12. [House Vote 431, 7/9/19; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.2515]