[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 163 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8154-H8157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1815, SEC DISCLOSURE EFFECTIVENESS 
TESTING ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3624, OUTSOURCING 
                       ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2019

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 629 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 629

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1815) to require the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, when developing rules and regulations about 
     disclosures to retail investors, to conduct investor testing, 
     including a survey and interviews of retail investors, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-34, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3624) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 
     the disclosure of the total number of domestic and foreign 
     employees of certain public companies, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 629, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 1815, the SEC Disclosure Effectiveness Testing Act. The rule 
provides for consideration of the legislation under a structured rule. 
It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services. It 
self-executes a manager's amendment that makes technical changes. It 
also makes in order four amendments, two Democratic and two Republican.

[[Page H8155]]

  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3624, the 
Outsourcing Accountability Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
member on the Committee on Financial Services. Finally, it makes in 
order two Republican amendments to H.R. 3624.
  Mr. Speaker, the bills before us this week are consumer protection 
bills. Together, these bills make an effort to give everyday Americans 
access to clear, digestible information that will help them make 
informed investment decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, inequality in this country is at a historic level. The 
experience right now is on par with the Great Depression and the gilded 
age. Without adjustments like the ones proposed in these bills, it can 
only get worse.
  The most visible indicator of wealth inequality in America today may 
be the Forbes magazine list of the Nation's 400 richest Americans. In 
2018, the three men at the top of this list--Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, 
Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and investor Warren Buffett--held 
combined fortunes worth more than the total wealth of the poorest half 
of Americans. Three men had more wealth than 160 million Americans.

                              {time}  1245

  In 1989, the bottom 90 percent of the U.S. population held 33 percent 
of all wealth. By 2016, the bottom 90 percent of the population held 
only 23 percent of wealth. The wealth share of the top 1 percent 
increased from about 30 percent to approximately 40 percent over the 
same period of time. The tax bill just passed by the House last session 
doubles down on this troubling trend.
  In 2019, a person in the bottom 10 percent gets a $50 tax cut, and a 
person in the top 1 percent gets a $34,000 tax cut. At the same time, 
millions of poor and middle-class people are expected to see their 
taxes either stay the same or actually increase in the long run.
  Before us today, the Outsourcing Accountability Act makes one simple 
but meaningful change to existing reporting requirements. It would add 
a requirement for publicly traded companies to annually report foreign 
and domestic employment statistics to the SEC: Are your employees 
working in the United States or are they working overseas?
  By publicly reporting this data that already is collected, companies 
are providing important information to their investors, consumers, and 
American workers, with no additional burden on their business.
  As Heather Slavkin Corzo of the AFL-CIO said recently: ``What gets 
measured gets paid attention to by a company''--and, I would add, their 
investors.
  As a former union member and a current member of the House Committee 
on Education and Labor, I think we in Congress should do everything we 
can to incentivize companies to invest in American workers and not to 
offshore their work.
  This administration has done everything in its power, in my view, to 
give corporations even more power at the expense of their employees--
and these effects are being felt in households across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the other bill before us is the SEC Disclosure 
Effectiveness Testing Act. All we are asking for in this bill is to 
make sure that the data we are collecting for consumers is easy to 
understand so it can be used in the way it was intended.
  Field testing allows average investors to pilot a form that the SEC 
is planning to use and be a focus group on whether it is user friendly 
and the results are understandable.
  A recent form that was field-tested revealed that everyday Americans 
were ``deeply confused'' about the information the form was supposed to 
be communicating. In this specific instance, we are talking about how a 
company discloses any conflicts of interest it may have in providing 
investment advice.
  Close to 7 million people in my home State of California and 55 
million people nationwide, most of them low and middle income, don't 
have access to retirement benefits at work. We are talking about people 
who work for small businesses, whose companies just cannot afford the 
expense of financial products on the market.
  In stark contrast, the financial sector takes around 25 percent of 
all corporate profits in the United States, represents 7 percent of the 
U.S. economy, and creates a mere 4 percent of jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it easier for people who are trying to 
build a secure retirement for themselves and their families to 
understand the investment advice they are receiving and whether it is 
in their best interest. We have an obligation to our workers who 
sacrifice and provide so much for our country to give them something in 
return.
  These two bills, taken together, help put consumers in the driver's 
seat. One requires information already collected by companies to be 
shared, and the other makes sure that consumers understand the 
information they are being given.
  The only people who should be opposed to these bills are big 
businesses who may be afraid of what the public will learn about their 
practices.
  The goal should be to give every American worker a secure retirement 
and protect consumers. Why wouldn't we want to take every step to get 
there?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), my friend, for 
yielding me the time today.
  Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, what folks decide they are going to 
highlight on the House floor are all of our disagreements. In fact, the 
1 minutes today highlighted that.
  My friend from California and I were talking before debate began--and 
I certainly include you in this partnership, Mr. Speaker. You lock a 
couple of us in the room together, we can solve about 90 percent of 
what ails this country. But the media wins--often distracts--from what 
is going on, and that is my frustration today, Mr. Speaker.
  I don't really have any objection with the rule as it sits before us. 
We heard testimony last night from the ranking member of the Committee 
on Financial Services.
  To paraphrase his words, he said these bills were so flawed that he 
didn't even offer any amendments in committee to try to make them 
better because there was no hope for these bills, no hope in two 
senses, Mr. Speaker: no hope for these bills in that they were so 
poorly drafted and poorly directed that they would not benefit the 
American people in the ways that they were intended; and no hope for 
these bills in that the Senate will never take them up and the 
President will never put his signature on them because they are so 
flawed.
  I can't take responsibility for what the Committee on Financial 
Services did, Mr. Speaker, because I don't sit on that committee. I can 
take responsibility for what the Rules Committee did last night, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I will tell you that it is the first time I have had the privilege of 
coming to the House floor and speaking on a rule where Republicans got 
as many amendments as Democrats did. It is a big day. I feel a 
partnership breaking out. I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
DeSaulnier), if we can keep this going, we might really be able to make 
a difference.

  It has been a frustration of ours, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, 
that, when you are in a majority-driven institution like this one, 
being in the majority has privileges; and a privilege is that you get 
to draft the legislation and then you get to draft the rule to bring 
the legislation to the floor, and you can jam anything through this 
institution if you want to.
  Generally, our best work isn't the work we jam through the 
institution. Generally, our best work is the work that we spend, not 
hours, not days, but weeks and months crafting together in partnership. 
Most of that work doesn't happen here on the House floor. That work 
happens in committees. It actually happens, oftentimes, behind closed 
doors, where earnest members can talk about what their constituents 
need.
  We can pass this rule this afternoon, and I will offer, later on, an 
amendment, if we defeat the previous question. I think it will make the 
rule better.
  But I do believe we have a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker. There is 
a lot of work that needs to be done.

[[Page H8156]]

  I have one of my bosses in town today, Mr. Speaker. Colonel Dennis 
Brown is a county commissioner in Forsyth County.
  I was telling him the story that one of my former bosses said: If you 
ever wanted a real job, he was going to run for county commissioner, 
because when you are county commissioner, everything you do impacts 
somebody's life. And nobody shows up at the county commission and says, 
``I have a problem, and if you are a Republican, I would like for you 
to fix it, but if you are a Democrat, it doesn't matter to me,'' or 
vice versa. Folks show up and say, ``I have a problem. I need you all 
to work together to fix it.''
  We have real problems here, Mr. Speaker. We all know, as we heard 
during the 1-minute time this morning, that drug pricing is a challenge 
in this country, and there are lot of different solutions. There are 
some more liberal solutions; there are some more conservative 
solutions; and there are some middle-of-the-road solutions that bring 
people together. I wish we had those on the floor this week.
  We all know that we have immigration challenges in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that about 27 percent of my bosses are 
first-generation Americans back home, folks who so believed in America 
that they traded away their entire family's life back in their home 
country to come and try to make a new life here in America. I love that 
we have those stories to tell.
  But we all know the immigration system is broken. Men and women who 
are trying desperately to get here the right way can't; men and women 
who are coming here the wrong way can. We all know that there are 
opportunities to do better there. We should have those provisions on 
the floor.
  We all know that Social Security is underfunded, and in just a few 
short years men and women who are dependent on that program are going 
to run into that shortfall.
  We can't do those hard things in unified government, Mr. Speaker. 
When Republicans win back the House next year and win the Presidency 
back and continue control of the Senate, that is going to be the wrong 
time to do fundamental reforms to Medicare and Social Security and 
Medicaid. It is going to be the wrong time to do the big things that 
need to be done to get our fiscal house in order.
  The right time is in divided government, where we have an opportunity 
to put everybody's fingerprints on a solution, not that yanks the 
pendulum left or right, but that moves the country deliberately in a 
direction that we can all agree on.
  But, sadly, that is not why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
  I listened to the Reading Clerk read the bill, as is always done, 
read the rule, and I think back to some of those days where the Reading 
Clerk is reading the appropriations bills or actually going through 
meaningful legislation line by line, opening it up so that every 
Member, no matter whom he or she represents, has an opportunity to come 
and offer amendments and make the bill better.
  The ranking member's testimony is the bills are so flawed, the 
committee didn't even bother considering amendments to make them 
better. I am pleased that the Rules Committee is going to offer an 
opportunity to make them a little bit better with the amendments that 
are made in order today, Mr. Speaker.
  But it is my great hope that we will be able to move past these 
messaging bills. Consumer protection isn't just a political message. 
Consumer protection is a shared goal, from the coast of California to 
the coast of Georgia. It is something that unites us in this 
institution, not divides us.
  I regret that the apparent legislative agenda for the week is going 
to be to consider bills that get approved or defeated on straight 
party-line votes. We can do better.
  In this current political environment, the American people may not 
expect better, but I know that my bosses do, and I will continue to 
press for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to make a comment to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
my friend, as we do this.
  I, first of all, express my respect and affection for him in the 
short time I have gotten to serve with him, and I agree with almost 
everything he said in his statement, with a possible exception of his 
prediction on the next election.
  But other than that, I, too, yearn to be part of this institution, 
this marvelous institution that solves problems as a premium, where you 
take a liberal perspective and a conservative perspective, where both 
respect one another and understand that, by listening to both, we 
actually get a product that is more reflective of the whole.
  Having been someone who served at the city level, the county level--
county commissioner--at the State level, and now in Congress, it is 
discouraging to be here and not be as engaged as I hoped to in problem-
solving and respecting differences of opinion.

  So we will get through this. The Speaker likes to quote Lincoln: With 
public sentiment, anything is possible; without it, nothing is 
possible.
  I believe he continued on to say: No statute has real force.
  So that is good for us to remember, that we have to go back to our 
townhalls, as we all do, and sometimes some of the most difficult parts 
of those townhalls is telling friends that you disagree with them, that 
there is another side of the story.
  So, with that, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my 
good friend, for his reflections and his hopes for this institution, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If the gentleman from California is going to start quoting Lincoln, I 
am going to have to bring out some Franklin.
  I remember in the summer of 1787, as folks were taking a break, it 
had been hard and they were worried they weren't going to be able to 
reach a conclusion on language for our Constitution, Franklin 
admonished the members there: Don't go home and find folks who agree 
with you, who are going to tell you how right you are; go and find 
folks who disagree with you and listen closely to what it is they are 
saying and what their concerns are that we may come back together and 
bridge a divide.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question today, I am going to 
offer an amendment to the rule, and that amendment is going to try to 
do exactly what I believe Members in this institution want, and that is 
to get back to some of the real problem-solving that goes on.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record the text 
of my amendment and any other extraneous material immediately prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the amendment is going to prioritize the 
work that we all know America wants us to do. I went through some of 
those items earlier: work for the chronically ill, for our seniors; 
folks struggling with prescription medications; folks who were 
concerned about congestion; folks--go right on down the list of all the 
priorities that we all hear from our constituents on a regular basis.
  If we defeat the previous question, it will amend the rule to allow 
an opportunity to move forward on these priority issues. I don't mean 
priority from a Republican perspective; I don't mean priority from a 
Democrat perspective. I mean priority from an American perspective.
  I serve on the House Select Committee on the Modernization of 
Congress here, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we just had a hearing upstairs in 
the Rules Committee, and it is a different dynamic.
  Mr. DeSaulnier and I serve on a committee of 13 people. There are no 
time limits on discussion in our committee. That committee has a 
majoritarian tilt--nine members in the majority, four in the minority--
so you know where the vote is going to go. But because it is a small 
committee, because it allows for open debate, it creates a relationship 
among the members that isn't possible, say, for the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, on which I sit, that has more than 
70 members on it.

[[Page H8157]]

  


                              {time}  1300

  I have a chance to listen every day to the opinions and the concerns 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as well as on my side 
of the aisle.
  What we concluded, as we were working on scheduling issues in the 
Modernization Committee--because we have so many young families here, 
folks who are trying to balance their obligations as a mother or a 
father with their obligations as a Member of Congress, and we all know 
how taxing that can be.
  And one of our witnesses, who has vast experience trying to work on 
House schedules, cautioned us against believing that you could wave a 
scheduling wand and suddenly create a more productive institution, that 
productivity comes from those relationships, productivity comes from 
that sincere effort to do better.
  We are here on financial services today. I cannot tell you that, in 
my time on Capitol Hill, the Committee on Financial Services is the 
committee I would pick out as the single most collegial committee on 
Capitol Hill.
  I think back to some of the discussions that have happened over the 
years there. It is a committee that takes on difficult issues and often 
divides along partisan lines.
  We have two Members from Georgia on the Financial Services Committee, 
Mr. Speaker: a gentleman from the metro Atlanta area (Mr. Scott) and a 
gentleman from farther west in Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk). One is a 
Republican. One is a Democrat.
  And, odds are, when we get into the real issues that are really going 
to make a difference for families across the district, they vote the 
same way.
  Whenever I go and try to get into the meat of a financial services 
issue, I can go to what my friends, Mr. Scott and Mr. Loudermilk, are 
saying. Again, opposite sides of the political spectrum, but a shared 
goal of trying to serve the men and women of Georgia as best they can.
  I confess, I don't have high hopes we are going to defeat the 
previous question and amend the rule and get back to focusing on what I 
would think are those common goals that we share. But I have been 
surprised before. And I have been surprised in ways that disappoint me, 
and I have been surprised in ways that make me proud.
  I will just say to my colleagues: If you are thinking about busting 
out of the box a little bit, if you are thinking about should we do 
things the same way we have always done them or should we try something 
new, if you are thinking about it is working great the way it has been 
going or thinking maybe we can improve on it a little bit, just 
consider the Woodall amendment to the rule today.
  Let's defeat the previous question; let's amend the rule; and then 
let's see if, perhaps, we can break out a new day of productivity, not 
based on Republicans and Democrats, but based on Americans who are 
facing real problems back home and the real solutions that we are very 
honored to be able to work to provide.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I say to my friend from California, I don't 
have any speakers here. I want to encourage my friends to defeat that 
previous question. In the absence of defeating the previous question, 
Mr. Speaker, I would ask folks to defeat the rule, give us a chance to 
go back up to the Rules Committee room with these 13 members and try to 
craft something even better than what we have here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend as well. It is always a 
pleasure to hear the gentleman's words of wisdom.
  I am reminded of a story that you will hear if the docent has the 
time at Monticello, when somebody asked Jefferson when he first opened: 
Mr. Jefferson, why do you have a bust of Mr. Hamilton opposite you? You 
don't agree on anything with Hamilton.
  Jefferson said: That is the point. That is why it is there.
  So, I appreciate the comments. I look forward to further 
conversations up in that room.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank my colleagues--
Congresswoman Axne, Congressman Casten, and Chairwoman Waters--for 
their leadership on these commonsense bills to protect American 
consumers and workers, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the 
previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 629

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution, the Committees on 
     the Judiciary, Ways and Means, Financial Services, Oversight 
     and Reform, and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence shall suspend pursuing matters 
     referred to by the Speaker in her announcement of September 
     24, 2019, until such time as bipartisan legislation to lower 
     prescription drug prices and limit patients' out of pocket 
     costs is signed into law.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________