[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 165 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8233-H8242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 OUTSOURCING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2019


                             General Leave

  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 3624, and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 629 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3624.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0919


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 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, with Mr. Neguse in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3624, the Outsourcing 
Accountability Act of 2019 crafted by Representative Axne from Iowa, a 
new Member to Congress and the Financial Services Committee.
  The Outsourcing Accountability Act of 2019 protects American workers 
by shining a light on companies that are shipping jobs overseas.
  Although public companies are required to disclose their total number 
of employees, there is currently no requirement that they disclose 
where those employees are geographically based. This allows companies 
to quietly ship jobs overseas and makes it difficult for investors to 
know if the companies they are investing in are creating and protecting 
American jobs.
  Moreover, voluntary disclosure of outsourcing data has declined in 
recent decades. According to the AFL-CIO: ``. . . multinational 
companies have increasingly focused job creation in non-U.S. markets 
and would prefer not to disclose numbers that could lead to 
reputational risks.''
  As a result of the lack of disclosure, some companies that are 
failing to invest in American workers escape accountability. The 
limited information the public does have about companies' outsourcing 
and offshoring usually comes from the news media.
  The data that we do have shows that the U.S. is losing jobs to trade. 
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the United States has lost 
more than 3 million American jobs to trade with China in the last 20 
years. Since 1975, more than 5 million Americans have been certified 
for Trade Adjustment Assistance after losing wages, hours, or their 
employment because of trade.
  President Trump's 2017 tax scam has also worsened matters by 
essentially incentivizing certain manufacturers to move entire 
production lines overseas.
  By requiring public companies to disclose the locations of their 
workforces,

[[Page H8234]]

the Outsourcing Accountability Act provides investors with the 
information they need on which companies are investing in the American 
economy and will incentivize companies to invest in American workers.
  With the passage of this bill into law, public companies would no 
longer be able to ship jobs overseas under the cover of darkness.
  I commend Representative Axne for introducing this bill that creates 
transparency and benefits American workers and urge adoption of H.R. 
3624.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3624. The Republicans stand 
ready to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
strengthen our public markets and increase opportunities for everyday 
investors.
  We know that robust capital markets give everyday investors the 
opportunity to save for a first home, a child's college education, and 
retirement. But instead of considering a bill that will grow the 
economy and create jobs, we are using our floor time, a full 
legislative day, in fact, to talk about where public company employees 
are located; not foreign companies, but American public companies.
  We are considering a bill that really should be part of a larger 
bill. It shouldn't take up a full legislative day. It is two-and-a-half 
pages of legislative text and does very little that it purports to do.
  But here we are. We must ensure that public companies are properly 
regulated and supervised to protect our capital markets for all 
Americans. That is why companies are already required to provide 
information to investors on risk exposure, material financial data, and 
the company's financial condition. These reports help investors 
determine whether they believe the company's value is worthy of 
investment.
  Unfortunately, Democrats are pursuing a partisan agenda of government 
mandates that jeopardize economic opportunity for millions of middle-
income Americans.
  H.R. 3624 is just the latest in a series of partisan proposals 
offered by committee Democrats to add nonfinancial disclosures to an 
already thorough list of mandatory disclosures, and the effort is 
really to pursue a political agenda or political interest rather than 
economic interest.

  These mandates add to a company's cost of compliance. And in some 
cases, they can put lives at risk for people who are employed in 
countries around the globe. They do not have an impact on the 
underlying value of the firm, and most certainly will discourage 
companies from going public.
  Why the bill's sponsor wants companies to disclose where employees 
reside is unclear. I know the title of the bill, but I don't see in the 
contents of the bill anything related to the title of the bill. The 
bill provides no context for this data.
  In fact, during the hearing on this legislation, witnesses shared 
that simply knowing that 1 percent of the company's workforce resides 
in a particular State or abroad, does not explain whether American 
workers hold these jobs or have moved between States or overseas for 
work; whether some expertise or resource is central to that job that 
cannot be found in the United States or cannot be found in the State or 
another region of the country; or whether moving jobs overseas results 
in cheaper products for the American consumer or more jobs here in the 
United States.
  Perhaps they are selling something to a foreign country. We don't 
have that as a part of information here with this disclosure. The 
information sought by H.R. 3624 would, at best, tell an incomplete 
story and, at worst, could be deeply misleading.
  The only plausible explanation for this bill is to use the 
information to try to shame public companies based on incomplete and 
misleading information. It is unclear to me how shaming a company 
benefits the everyday investor, or encourages more companies to go 
public, or brings more vibrant capital markets here in the United 
States or creates jobs here in the United States.
  How does shaming a company encourage more companies to go public? How 
does shaming create more opportunities to save for retirement? How does 
it enhance children's savings for college, or parents saving for their 
children to go to college?
  How does it build a brighter, more vibrant future for them 
economically? In fact, we have yet this Congress to bring a bill to the 
floor that would accomplish the goal of building retirement savings, 
savings for a college education, or help with buying a first home.
  We have yet to consider one bill that will grow the economy or 
actually create jobs. We are falling behind China. We are falling 
behind our economic competitors across the world when it comes to the 
number of initial public offerings, the number of IPOs.
  China has more IPOs than the United States in recent time. We need to 
right this. I want to hear what my Democrat colleagues' solution is to 
that issue; not just a messaging bill that we have here today of two-
and-a-half pages of legislative text.

                              {time}  0930

  I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people. Let's get back 
to the economic work that they need, given where we are in this 
economic cycle. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. 
It does nothing that the title says that it does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Iowa (Mrs. Axne), who is the sponsor of the bill.
  Mrs. AXNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mrs. Maloney, the chair of the 
Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets 
Subcommittee, for her support on this bill. I also thank Senator Peters 
and Representative McNerney for their work on the Outsourcing 
Accountability Act.
  Last December, Wells Fargo in my district laid off 400 workers, 
claiming it was due to technological advances. But I heard from dozens 
of laid-off employees who were directed to train their replacements 
overseas. Across the country, corporations are shipping jobs overseas, 
leaving American workers high and dry, just to benefit their bottom 
line.
  What is worse is that corporations aren't even required to disclose 
when they are laying off hardworking Americans by moving jobs overseas. 
Currently, when corporations submit their annual reports, they are only 
required to disclose the total number of employees, not where they are 
located. This makes it far too easy for companies to hide when they are 
laying off American workers and moving those jobs overseas.
  It also makes it easier for corporations to deceive the public about 
inaccurate job creation. If a company lays off 500 workers in Iowa and 
then hires 1,000 of them in India, their annual report would show that 
they added 500 jobs when, in reality, hardworking Iowans are left 
unemployed, wondering how they are going to pay their bills.
  Employees who lose their jobs due to overseas trade are eligible for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA. This program provides laid-off 
American workers with support and training to find a new job. But 
workers are only eligible for this assistance if they can certify that 
their job has been outsourced, which can be very difficult if a company 
is lying about outsourcing.
  Far too often, companies are more concerned with protecting their 
public image than protecting workers and are reluctant to notify laid-
off workers that their job has been outsourced. We have seen this 
happen time and time again.
  My bill, the Outsourcing Accountability Act, would simply require 
public companies to include in their annual report where their 
employees are located by State and country. This will disincentivize 
companies from outsourcing, and it will certainly disincentivize them 
from lying to employees and the public about it. If a company knows 
that information will be disclosed, they will think twice about such 
unpopular actions. Not only will this help disincentivize the practice 
of outsourcing and protect American jobs, but it will give investors 
and consumers the information they need to identify companies that are 
supporting American jobs.
  I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said 
this is

[[Page H8235]]

too burdensome for companies. If a corporation isn't already tracking 
where in the world their employees are located, then for God's sake, 
they have bigger problems than this legislation.
  One of the most difficult things about trying to address outsourcing 
and offshoring is that it is so hard to get information about how many 
jobs it affects. This is a commonsense reporting bill that will 
increase transparency and accountability on a practice that is 
contributing to unemployment across this country, and it doesn't even 
cost the taxpayers a dime.
  I have heard from dozens of Iowans in my district who are looking at 
their expenses and wondering how they are going to get through the 
month. They are wondering this because they have been laid off by their 
employer that claimed technological advances only to then train 
employees to replace them overseas.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go back home 
to their districts and talk to their constituents who are struggling to 
pay their bills or put food on the table because their jobs have been 
shipped overseas. Go back home. Ask them if they elected you to fight 
for American jobs or for multinational corporations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bill does no such thing as the author just stated, Mr. Chair. It 
gives a list of the numbers of employees in each State or territory in 
the United States. It gives the number of employees in a country as a 
matter of corporate disclosures.
  If my friend wants to talk about accountability, a list of names is 
not accountability, unless this is about the trial bar suing or it is 
about naming and shaming companies for changing head counts in 
different States or government intervening to say that you can't move 
employees between States. It does not do the things that the author 
states.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is the chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital 
Markets.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentlewoman for her support on this bill and for her leadership on the 
Financial Services Committee.
  I rise in strong support of the bill to protect American workers from 
outsourcing, H.R. 3624, the Outsourcing Accountability Act of 2019. And 
I congratulate my new colleague and my new friend from the great State 
of Iowa, Cindy Axne, for her hard work on this important bill that will 
help American workers and save American jobs.
  This bill would require companies to disclose in their annual report 
the total number of employees they employ in each State and each 
foreign country. It would also require companies to disclose how those 
numbers have changed from the previous year, which is critically 
important because it will allow investors and the public to monitor 
which companies are sending U.S. jobs overseas and also to see which 
companies are bringing jobs back to the United States and employing 
Americans.

  When companies outsource more of their jobs to other countries, 
sometimes that lowers a company's costs, but it also exposes the 
company to reputational risk and increased operational risk. If more of 
the company's workforce is located overseas, then the company is more 
exposed to political unrest or trade disruptions, which we have 
recently seen around the world.
  It also makes it more difficult for companies to train workers who 
are located halfway across the globe and to oversee their workforce and 
ensure robust compliance with all the necessary regulatory 
requirements. It opens the company up to potential scandals and fines, 
which, at the end of the day, harms investors and harms the companies.
  These risks are definitely material to investors, and they need to 
know about them.
  The bill would fix these problems and would hold companies that are 
outsourcing U.S. jobs accountable for the decisions they are making. 
This bill helps the American worker. It is just plain common sense, and 
it does not cost the taxpayer anything. It is a win-win-win in so many 
areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this worker protection 
bill.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairwoman Waters and 
Representative Axne for bringing forth this legislation, H.R. 3624.
  I have to admit that I don't really understand the ranking member's 
objection to this legislation. As Americans continue to struggle in an 
economy where too many corporations value profits over people, this 
legislation grew out of the idea that consumers should know about the 
choices their companies are making so they can determine how to use 
their purchasing power.
  H.R. 3624 would require a publicly traded company to disclose the 
number of employees working in the United States and abroad and to 
report the differences from year to year.
  Too many Americans find themselves out of work because the companies 
they have put their faith and hope for the future in decided to ship 
their jobs out of this country without a thought for the workers and 
communities they leave behind. As these companies look for short-term 
gains through outsourcing, they neglect the long-term damage that this 
practice does to our economy and to our country.
  This legislation would bring real transparency at a time when 
consumers are becoming increasingly conscious about where they spend 
and invest their money.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  While I agree with my colleague from New York's sartorial decisions, 
we diverge here.
  What I would say to my colleagues here in the Chamber is that we all 
care about having more workers here in America. We do. A corporate 
mandate on disclosing the number of employees does not actually do 
that.
  Having competitive regulations, having a competitive Tax Code, 
competing around the globe for jobs here in the United States, winning 
a trade war with the biggest competitor on the globe that we have--a 
rising China--and having an eye to the competition we face globally is 
the way we get American jobs here and keep them here.
  Simply mandating something more on our companies and holding them 
back and retraining them does not actually move us forward in the 
globe. It doesn't. It doesn't actually get at the driving force of 
this.
  What I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that 
it seems like they do support our having a reset with our trade 
relationship with China and that they do agree that we need to have a 
new trading relationship with our biggest trading partners so we get 
more jobs here. The unions support that concept. Republicans support 
that concept. We should be able to have a bipartisan coalition to 
support a better agenda on trade so that we have American jobs here.
  My district has felt that intensely, with the loss of textile 
manufacturing jobs. The way we brought them back is by competing: by 
having better regulation, better tax rates, and more technological 
innovation here in the United States. Now, we have more jobs than we 
did 10 years ago in textiles in North Carolina. We have more jobs than 
we did 10 years ago when it deals with furniture.
  We can compete. We can do this smartly, and we can do it well. But 
more corporate mandates and more expense burdens on public companies 
does not lead to more public companies and does not lead to better 
investments for pensioners, whether it is public pensions, union 
pensions, or individual folks who want to save for their retirement.
  What we have to do is think differently than just more mandates, more 
regulation, and more burden.
  No State has felt this type of challenge and dealt with it in a 
competitive way than the State of Michigan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.

[[Page H8236]]

Huizenga), who is the lead Republican on the Investor Protection, 
Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member yielding 
me the time.
  As I was hearing my colleagues describe what this bill does and whom 
it is targeted at, it just struck me, there is an untethering from 
reality of what our economy is and how our economy functions.
  Certainly, along any of the border--and, yes, we have a northern 
border, while in Michigan it is actually to the east of us. When you 
look at what happens in the automotive industry, and when you look at 
what happens in the agricultural industry, that is the most porous 
border in the world because that is our largest trading partner in the 
world. In just the State of Michigan alone, Canada is the seventh or 
eighth largest trading partnership in the entire world.

  As we have been piling on regulation upon regulation over the last 
number of decades, Mr. Chairman, you saw companies leaving the United 
States. Sometimes, though, they were for different reasons. It is the 
supply chain. It didn't have anything to do with lower labor markets in 
Canada. The UAW strike also was the Canadian workers' strike. This is 
all linked together.
  In the bill itself, there is a disclosure requirement that we have to 
desegregate by State, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth, 
territory, and possession, and compare a percentage. So, Mr. Chairman, 
as you are shifting from Ohio to Detroit, Indiana, or Wisconsin, you 
are going to have to track all of those things as you are going 
through--by the way, not by numbers but by percentages of the total 
number of employees who physically work in and domicile in another 
country outside of the United States.
  Again, you are going to have to do that same thing as you are 
shifting automotive parts production between subsidiaries. That happens 
all the time, whether it is going from Troy, Michigan, or to Windsor, 
Ontario.

                              {time}  0945

  That is a free flow that goes back and forth all the time. That has 
nothing to do with some nefarious shipping of jobs overseas. That is 
called supply chain.
  So this bill is flawed because it paints an incomplete company 
picture. Simply knowing one percentage of a company's workforce 
residing abroad--which obviously means everywhere and on anything--just 
really does not give you any kind of picture or flavor or test of what 
is happening within that.
  And, yes, it is duplicative. In fact, I will have an amendment on 
this bill a little bit later. We already have conflict mineral 
reporting. We have all kinds of other reporting that had happened 
because of Dodd-Frank.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. I can tell you that the lack of competitiveness in the 
United States and one of the challenges that we have on our committee 
that we constantly talk about is how do we make sure that the United 
States is an area for growth, innovation, entrepreneurship.
  Because these companies that are now public, none of them started out 
public. They became public companies. And we have seen a plunge in the 
number of publicly traded companies. That is why I supported regulatory 
reform. That is why I supported tax reform, because we had to make the 
United States more competitive.
  This bill does nothing to help the United States become more 
competitive. It becomes less competitive and more burdensome, and all 
with the goal of shaming companies, not actually getting aggregate 
information that helps anybody.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Outsourcing Accountability Act of 2019 is a commonsense bill that 
is supported by consumer advocacy organizations, like Public Citizen, 
the labor representatives from the AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of 
America, the United Automobile Workers, and the United Steelworkers.
  According to the Communications Workers of America: ``This key piece 
of legislation would greatly help working families and CWA fully 
supports the bill's passage. This is a vital effort to guarantee that 
companies are required, by law, to disclose the magnitude to which they 
outsource American jobs and exploit low-cost foreign labor.''
  According to the AFL-CIO, the offshoring disclosure required by H.R. 
3624 would ``help investors analyze companies' strategic plans, 
exposures to geopolitical risk and risk from extreme weather events. 
From a public policy perspective, such disclosure will also allow the 
public to see the effect of the corporate tax cut on encouraging 
offshoring.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Communications Workers of America in support of H.R. 3624.

                                         Communications Workers of


                              America, Legislative Department,

                                                 October 15, 2019.
     Hon. Cindy Axne,
     Member of Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Axne: On behalf of the officers and 
     700,000 members of the Communications Workers of America ( 
     CWA), I am writing to thank you for introducing H.R. 3624, 
     the Outsourcing Accountability Act of 2019. This key piece of 
     legislation would greatly help working families and CWA fully 
     supports the bill's passage. This is a vital effort to 
     guarantee that companies are required, by law, to disclose 
     the magnitude to which they outsource American jobs and 
     exploit low-cost, foreign labor.
       As you know, under existing law, publicly traded 
     corporations are not required to publicly list where their 
     employees are located. This lack of disclosure makes it much 
     more difficult to hold corporations that move jobs overseas 
     accountable. The Outsourcing Accountability Act remedies this 
     problem by requiring companies to disclose the total number 
     of employees that they have by state and country, and the 
     percentage change from the previous year.
       Without this accountability mechanism, corporations will 
     continue to attempt to deceive workers and the American 
     public when they outsource jobs. A prime example of this 
     problem occurred when Wells Fargo announced a massive layoff 
     of over 26,500 employees in 2018. While the company 
     proclaimed the layoff was due to changes in customer 
     preferences and publicly denied that work was being 
     offshored, several investigations by the Department of Labor 
     revealed that many people lost their jobs because Wells Fargo 
     chose to expand their operations overseas. In fact, the 
     company is opening a call center in the Philippines where 
     they will employ over 7,000 workers. This same dynamic occurs 
     frequently across industries.
       CWA believes this bill adds imperative transparency that 
     will disincentive the practice of corporations outsourcing 
     jobs. Furthermore, it will help ensure that workers affected 
     by outsourcing are able to access their Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance benefits by demonstrating more clearly that 
     offshoring played a role in their job loss.
       We are very grateful for your efforts on this bill and 
     thank you for your commitment to standing up for American 
     workers with the introduction of H.R. 3624. We look forward 
     to working with you on this and other issues of importance to 
     working people in the future.
           Sincerely,
     Shane Larson,
       Senior Director, Government Affairs and Policy, 
     Communications Workers of America (CWA).

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, if I may inquire if the 
gentlewoman from California has any further speakers.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let us be clear: The bill we are considering right now has nothing to 
do with outsourcing. This is a political talking point, not a piece of 
legislation. It will not bring jobs back to the United States. The bill 
is simply designed to create more opportunities for corporate activists 
and the trial bar to name and shame companies.
  What does this do for the American people? Nothing.
  In contrast, the Republican Tax Cut and Jobs Act has brought more 
jobs and greater payback to the United States.
  Mr. Chair, our unemployment rate is at a 50-year low, so all this 
economic gloom about outsourcing, we have been talking about 
insourcing, bringing jobs back to the United States from overseas.
  We have a President who has an aggressive trade agenda to make sure 
that we have more jobs here in the United States instead of outsourcing

[[Page H8237]]

jobs through bad trade deals that we agree in a bipartisan way.
  Bad trade deals have cost us jobs over the years, led by both 
Republican and Democratic Presidents, unfortunately. So there is 
bipartisan support here for better trade legislation, better trading 
relationships. Let's focus on that.
  The labor force participation rate is way up and continues to rise. 
More people in the United States are entering the workforce than 
leaving the workforce. The American people are reaping the benefits of 
a strong economy.
  If Democrats are serious about continuing to grow our economy and 
create high-paying jobs, let's start passing bills that unleash 
companies, not constrain them.
  Let's help businesses grow, not discourage them from going public. 
American businesses need resources, not mandates, to compete with our 
biggest economic threat--China.
  If my Democratic colleagues are not interested in growing our 
economy, let's find other areas of common ground. We should pass bills 
that help everyday Americans save for their retirement, for their 
children's college education, or to buy their first home.
  Let's help those workers who are putting together a couple of jobs 
get full-time jobs.
  Let's pass bipartisan legislation to help seniors access prescription 
drugs.
  Let's authorize the Defense Department and have a stronger national 
defense by passing a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act.
  Unfortunately, this bill we are discussing today would do none of 
those things; and we have spent the large majority of our week 
discussing two small, tidy, but very vacuous, extraordinarily vacuous, 
pieces of legislation that have consumed our week, legislatively.
  We have a 2\1/2\ page bill that is the full bit of our business here 
on a Friday, on a legislative day. We had a really meaningless, 
vacuous, poorly designed bill yesterday that consumed a whole 
legislative day as well. This is not the way we should be running 
Congress.
  I would like to reiterate: The Republicans stand ready to work with 
our colleagues across the aisle on meaningful legislation that will 
help the American people.
  So let's vote this bill down. Let's not just agree with the political 
talking point that is put into legislative text for political reasons. 
Let's vote this down. Let's get to serious legislating and get done 
with these empty bills and on with the work of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 17 minutes remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have sat here and listened to my colleagues on the 
opposite side of the aisle attempt to explain why it is they are 
opposed to this bill and what this bill is attempting to do to create 
transparency in American companies by simply asking them to disclose 
the number of jobs that they are exporting overseas. I don't understand 
what their argument is.
  I have heard from both sides of the aisle, for years, that one of our 
number one priorities is jobs: job creation and job retention. I have 
heard from both sides of the aisle that we must do everything that we 
can to stop American corporations from exporting our jobs offshore.
  I have heard Members from both sides of the aisle take to the floor 
of the House of Representatives and talk about how we must stop, how we 
must do everything that we possibly can to ensure that we are in no way 
supporting or incentivizing our companies to export our jobs overseas.
  We heard the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Axne), author of this bill, 
who talked about what happened in her district with Wells Fargo. We 
heard her explain how these people, these employees are hurting, and 
many of them just feel it is absolutely unfair for our companies who 
got big tax breaks to be able to export our jobs overseas in search of 
cheap labor, undermining the labor force here in America.
  I don't know how they justify that.
  And I heard the ranking member of this committee keep talking about 
shaming the companies. I don't know who he is trying to protect. I 
don't know where he gets this language from, ``shaming the companies.''
  But if that is what he wants to use, if that is what he wants to 
accuse me of--I am sure he is not accusing the author of this bill of 
shaming American companies. But if you want to accuse me of that, you 
might be able to do so.

  And let me just say this: You might be able to say that I am throwing 
a little shade on you also, because if, in fact, you are defending the 
actions of American companies that are taking your constituents' jobs 
out of your district, offshore, and you can defend that, then there is 
something wrong with your reasoning.
  And I don't know if it is shaming or shading or whatever it is, I am 
opposed to it. Most of the Members of this House of Representatives are 
opposed to it.
  And this legislator, a new legislator, who came to the Congress of 
the United States probably wondered why we hadn't done something about 
this sooner. I am so pleased that she had the courage, the wisdom, and 
the insight to challenge us all and to say this has got to stop.
  And you are saying this bill does nothing? Are you saying that 
information is no good? Are you saying that somehow knowing this, 
understanding this, we wouldn't be able to do something about it?
  Well, let me just tell you, I think you are wrong. I think you are 
absolutely wrong.
  When this information is revealed, when this information is unfolded, 
when it is made evident that these companies are doing this, then I 
think we have more than a few Members who will rise to the occasion to 
do everything possible to stop shipping American jobs from our 
districts to foreign countries for cheap labor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services, printed 
in the bill. That committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3624

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Outsourcing Accountability 
     Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF NUMBER OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
     U.S.C. 78m) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Disclosure of Number of Domestic and Foreign 
     Employees.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `covered 
     subsidiary' means, with respect to an issuer, any subsidiary 
     of such issuer that is--
       ``(A) a consolidated subsidiary; or
       ``(B) a subsidiary with respect to which the issuer 
     accounts for the investment of the issuer in the subsidiary 
     using the equity method of accounting.
       ``(2) Disclosure requirement.--Except with respect to an 
     emerging growth company, beginning in the first full fiscal 
     year that begins after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, each issuer that is required to file a report 
     with the Commission pursuant to subsection (a) shall disclose 
     in such report--
       ``(A) the total number of employees of the issuer and any 
     covered subsidiary of the issuer who are domiciled in the 
     United States--
       ``(i) disaggregated by State, District of Columbia, 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; 
     and
       ``(ii) compared using a percentage change calculation to 
     any such total reported by the issuer in the most recent 
     annual report of the issuer;
       ``(B) the total number of employees of the issuer who 
     physically work in and are domiciled in any country other 
     than the United States--
       ``(i) disaggregated by country; and
       ``(ii) compared using a percentage change calculation to 
     any such total reported by the issuer in the most recent 
     annual report of the issuer; and
       ``(C) the total number of employees of any covered 
     subsidiary of the issuer who physically work in and are 
     domiciled in any country other than the United States--

[[Page H8238]]

       ``(i) disaggregated by country; and
       ``(ii) compared using a percentage change calculation to 
     any such total reported by the issuer in the most recent 
     annual report of the issuer.
       ``(3) Rulemaking.--The Commission may issue such rules as 
     the Commission considers necessary to implement this 
     subsection.''.

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


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Huizenga

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

       Page 3, line 21, insert after ``emerging growth company'' 
     the following: ``and except as provided in paragraph (3)''.
       Page 5, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(3) Exception.--An issuer is not required to disclose 
     information pursuant to paragraph (2) if such issuer is 
     required to make disclosures pursuant to--
       ``(A) subsection 13(p); or
       ``(B) section 229.402 of title 17, Code of Federal 
     Regulation, relating to chief executive officer pay 
     ratios.''.
       Page 5, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 629, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, what we just heard a little while ago from 
the other side of the aisle can be easily explained. They don't 
understand the power of the Federal Government fully on how it can 
deter growth in our economy.
  It is not one big, giant thing. It is death by a thousand cuts. It is 
creating the atmosphere or destroying the atmosphere that allows 
innovation, allows growth, and allows the entrepreneurial spirit that 
has set America apart from the rest of the world. It is putting it on 
the chopping block.
  That is why I oppose this bill. Once again, we are using the massive 
power of the Federal Government to bully companies around.
  I am kind of curious, if this is all about foreign jobs, why in the 
world, under section (A)(i), we are going to need all this information 
disaggregated by State--by State.
  This has nothing to do with whether a job is going to Mexico or China 
or Vietnam or Canada. It has to do with whether it is going from 
Michigan to Ohio or from Indiana to Iowa.
  Yet, you are going to force the companies to continue to do all of 
this work for zero benefit, no benefit--not a benefit to an investor, 
not a benefit to the employee, certainly, unless, apparently, you have 
something against Michigan or against Ohio. I have got something 
against their university, not the State.
  But why we continue to just pile this on is why I believe this is 
deeply flawed and it paints incomplete pictures of what is going on.
  So, today, my amendment is this: I am offering a simple amendment 
that would exempt issuers from making these disclosures if they are 
already required to make a CEO pay ratio disclosure and disclosures 
relating to conflict minerals.
  I cannot describe to you fully in these 5 minutes the damage that has 
been done with conflict minerals alone in a wide swath of industries, 
including the automotive industry.
  People would think: Why in the world would that have anything to do 
with it? It has been hundreds and hundreds of man-hours to try to track 
something down that is untrackable. We still have no idea where all 
this is.
  So, my amendment today--and, if this is really about foreign jobs and 
all those kinds of things, which we know it is really not because we 
need to disaggregate it by State; but, if it is about that, then it is 
time for the authors to step up and support this amendment.
  We need to stop mandating frivolous disclosures for public companies. 
Well, we already have two with the CEO pay ratio and the conflict 
minerals.
  I believe this is reasonable to say, that if you already are doing 
those, you no longer have to do these additional disclosures.
  We should be looking at ways to lower costs, reducing barriers on 
those seeking to become the next Ford, the next Amazon, the next 
Microsoft. Instead, we are just putting up speed bump after speed bump 
after speed bump. What happens, Mr. Chair, is those speed bumps 
eventually turn into a wall, and that stops all progress.
  So, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose Representative Huizenga's 
amendment, which would effectively gut H.R. 3624 by exempting the vast 
majority of public companies from the outsourcing disclosure.
  The amendment does this indirectly by exempting companies that have 
to comply with SEC rules requiring disclosure of the pay ratio between 
the CEO's compensation and that of its median employee or rules 
requiring disclosures relating to conflict minerals. However, all 
public companies must comply with those rules, with some narrow 
exemptions.
  The CEO pay ratio and conflict minerals disclosures have nothing to 
do with the new requirement to disclose how many jobs are being 
outsourced.
  Taken together with the limited exemption for newly public companies 
already in H.R. 3624, the amendment would limit the bill's outsourcing 
disclosures to small reporting companies, foreign private issuers, and 
certain registered investment companies.
  What my Republican colleagues do not seem to understand is that 
investors do care about all of these types of disclosures. They know 
that when a CEO makes significant multiples of the median employee, the 
performance of the company is hurt. Investors also know that, if a 
company sources its minerals to conflict zones, it faces a much higher 
risk than a company with a stable source of resources.
  Likewise, investors also want to know whether a company is creating 
jobs in the United States or overseas.
  By proposing a huge expansion of exemptions, Representative 
Huizenga's amendment would effectively negate the bill and allow 
companies to continue to, quietly and secretly, ship American jobs 
overseas.
  Let me just add to these comments, in particular for all of the new 
Members of Congress: Anytime any company is shipping jobs out of your 
district, no matter where they are going, you raise questions. You ask 
why they are doing that. Don't be ashamed to do that. Don't think that 
something is wrong with doing that.
  You were elected to represent the people in your district, and Mr. 
Huizenga would have you believe that, if jobs are being taken from your 
State to another State, you are supposed to be quiet because something 
is wrong with that.
  I don't care whether it is from State to State or overseas or what 
have you. Representatives who were sent here to speak for their 
constituents should be concerned about that, they should raise the 
questions, and they should be involved with everything they can do 
to preserve those jobs.

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I will make it quick, because this is pretty 
easy.
  What you just heard isn't true, Mr. Chairman, because if, truly, the 
other side cared about anytime there was a job getting shipped 
overseas, they would not have, under the (B)(2) disclosure requirement, 
an exemption with respect to an emerging growth company.
  If they actually put their money where their mouth is, they wouldn't 
have that exclusion in there because,

[[Page H8239]]

apparently, an automotive job isn't as valuable as an emerging growth 
company job.
  So, I am confused. If that is really what it is all about, then we 
ought to make sure that the rules apply to everybody and that there 
should not be an exemption.
  And I am confused as to why the author of this bill would allow that 
to happen, would allow those technology companies to ship those jobs 
overseas, without any respect of having to report that.
  Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I am being a little sarcastic, but it just 
goes to show why this is a flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Axne), the sponsor of this important 
legislation.
  Mrs. AXNE. Mr. Chair, as a new Member of Congress, there is a lot of 
learning to be done. But what I can tell you from listening to this 
debate this morning is that I am always astounded at how we can't come 
together to find common ground to help people in this country, and that 
is simply what this bill does.
  This amendment proposed by my colleague is, quite simply, designed to 
exempt the vast majority of companies from the Outsourcing 
Accountability Act and leave the disclosures exactly as they are now, 
and I fail to see any logic behind saying that companies that disclose 
their CEO pay ratio or whether they are using conflict minerals should 
be exempt from the disclosures in this bill. It has nothing to do with 
it.
  The disclosures in my bill are meant to show if a corporation is 
truly supporting American jobs or if they are shipping them overseas.
  If my colleague doesn't want to know where that information is and 
how many companies are shipping jobs overseas in the companies that he 
is investing in, then he should just simply say so.
  I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
brought up that there could be good reasons to add jobs overseas. 
Nothing in this bill prevents companies from explaining that. If a 
company is opening new retail stores abroad, they can simply say that. 
The same goes for any other reason.
  This bill is very simple. It simply requires the companies to 
disclose to the public information that they already have about what in 
country their employees are located. This amendment would remove that 
requirement, leaving companies free to continue to hide that 
information.
  A vote for this amendment is really a vote against the bill itself.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this unproductive 
amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hill of Arkansas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part C of House Report 116-237.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 21, insert after ``emerging growth company'' 
     the following: ``and except as provided in paragraph (3)''.
       Page 5, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(3) Exception.--An issuer is not required to disclose 
     information pursuant to paragraph (2) if such information is 
     not material.''.
       Page 5, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 629, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the ranking member 
on our side for offering me time to explain my amendment. I commend my 
friend from Iowa for her work in this legislation.
  Let me make a couple of comments initially about the bill, generally. 
First of all, I don't think this bill is going to be a disincentive, as 
she described it, to companies who are recruiting to another State or 
considering moving to another country, potentially, for supply chain 
reasons, because, look, they are doing what they think is in the best, 
long-run interest of building their product.
  And, don't forget, our States recruit our companies, countries 
recruit our companies. We look at supply chains. These are frequently 
very public matters about Governors bragging how many employees they 
have from each State and each company.
  And the WARN Act, which is already on the statute books, certainly 
takes care of this issue of notice on layoffs and disclosure of 
employees.
  In my own State recently we had Kimberly-Clark, a publicly traded 
company, decide to move jobs to Wisconsin. Those jobs were well known 
in my district and in Mr. Gallagher's district in Wisconsin. There was 
nothing secret about it. It is just part of business realigning inside 
our beautiful, largest economy in the world.
  And I do have concerns about this disclosure internationally that my 
friend is requiring, because what if you are proposing to enter a 
country and you want to keep that private, for competition purposes, 
from international competition or from your competitors in the United 
States? You are now forced, as a public company, to disclose, oh, I 
have one employee in a country.
  I find that concerning. You may even put that employee at a safety 
risk, depending on what country is a target for Americans.
  So, in my view, that brings up the topic of overall burden, and we 
know of the old expression ``the straw that broke the camel's back.''
  And regulatory burdens are cumulative. Any one burden doesn't seem 
large, but, when piled up on all the other burdens, you see it in 
total.
  I was talking to a chief accounting officer the other day of a $2 
billion market cap company. She spends $250,000 a year, for example, to 
comply with the conflict mineral rule. If you have a 10-time multiple 
on that, that is a lot of money annualized impacting their business to 
try to comply with something they say is not physically possible to 
comply with.
  So, I look at this as an additional burden. I urge that it not be 
adopted.
  And my amendment does something simple. It just simply says, if this 
employment disclosure, domestically or internationally, is material to 
the business, in keeping with the tradition of the securities laws, 
then okay. So, if it is a material statement to describe where these 
employees are located to the business, then that might be something 
useful.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague from Arkansas on 
the opposite side of the aisle that the need to be concerned about 
regulations relative to companies that are shipping jobs overseas is 
something I don't understand. I don't understand why the Members on the 
opposite side of the aisle could take this precious time to come here 
in defense of companies that would ship our American jobs overseas for 
cheap labor.
  There is no excuse. There is no reason. There is no reason why our 
colleagues who come here to represent constituents, many of whom are 
still looking for jobs, and those who get laid off because their 
companies have taken their jobs and shipped them overseas, would come 
here and defend some company because they believe that we are being too 
tough on them, that we are overregulating them.
  Well, I don't understand it, and there is nothing they could say or 
do to help me understand that.
  I strongly oppose Representative Hill's amendment because it would 
effectively negate the purpose of H.R. 3624 by allowing companies to 
opt out of this disclosure if they believe that

[[Page H8240]]

the information is not ``material'' information for investors.
  As we all know, in practice, companies have interpreted ``material'' 
only to include information on issues that have a current and easily 
quantifiable impact. This is exactly what the multinational companies 
that have been shipping American jobs overseas want, to hide what they 
are doing.
  As the AFL-CIO noted before an Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, 
and Capital Markets Subcommittee hearing in May, multinational 
companies ``have increasingly focused job creation in non-U.S. markets 
and would prefer not to disclose numbers that would lead to 
reputational risks.''
  We must stand with American workers and address this informational 
barrier to help investors, the public, and policymakers understand the 
true magnitude of the problem. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Chair, my friend from California, I think, 
is making the case that this bill is confusing and a burden because we 
don't even know internationally if these are American jobs that were 
moved or not.
  You are just counting the people in foreign countries. I don't know 
that that is really relevant. And it weakens your argument, in my view, 
as well, that we are disclosing in the States, as my friend, the 
ranking member, made so eloquently. So I think it is a burden.
  It is not about shipping jobs. We have the WARN Act, which directly 
deals with jobs that are shipped overseas, or moved, and makes sure 
that people are retrained and compensated in the right way.
  Instead, this is another burden on our public companies, our public 
companies. We want more public companies.
  I just formed the Entrepreneur Caucus with my friends Mr. Foster, Mr. 
Veasey, Stephanie Murphy, and   Steve Chabot. We have asked GAO why we 
are not having more public companies at smaller sizes.
  I submit to you, my friends from California and Iowa, it is because 
we have raised the cost of being public too high. This is another 
burden, and I think we should think long and hard before we add 
burdens.
  Materiality is the way to bring balance back.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, does the gentleman have any 
more speakers?
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I don't, but I have time that I 
will use, so I will use that time to close.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Chair, let me close by simply saying that 
we want more public companies. We want to lower the cost of being 
public. We want to remove barriers from being public. We do that by 
carefully balancing the regulatory burden to be public.
  This bill, which does not enhance any knowledge for investors or do 
anything important or material, weakens that effort to reduce barriers 
to being public.
  I believe we should have a materiality standard. I urge adoption of 
my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Arkansas 
to use your time to deal with the burden that you claim multinationals 
have just for doing this reporting. We will use our time to support the 
workers and the people of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Iowa (Mrs. Axne), the sponsor of this important legislation.
  Mrs. AXNE. Mr. Chairman, as written, my colleague's amendment would 
severely limit the Outsourcing Accountability Act and continue to leave 
companies in charge of whether or not they tell the public about 
outsourcing.
  Corporations are already going to great lengths to cover it up, and 
if they are moving jobs overseas, why would they voluntarily disclose 
it in their annual report?
  My colleague mentioned that this is the straw that broke the camel's 
back. I can tell you that these companies are already tracking this 
information. We have to pay workers; therefore, they know exactly where 
they are located.
  I have done this work in my past. I have been involved with human 
resources and organizational development for my entire career. I have 
tracked this kind of information. All it takes is programming and a 
push of the button to make sure that that information comes out.
  I would like to also talk about the WARN Act because the WARN Act 
does not require disclosure of whether layoffs are due to outsourcing. 
That is exactly why we need this information, so workers can get that 
Trade Adjustment Assistance they need to put food on the table to feed 
their children and keep their lights on.
  These disclosures are intended to find out if a corporation is truly 
creating American jobs or if, instead, they are just moving them 
overseas. This amendment, just like the last one, would leave things 
just as they are now, with corporations able to share that information 
only if they decide to do so.
  That situation has left us with, frankly, insufficient data about 
outsourcing as a general practice and minimal transparency about which 
corporations are creating American jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this unproductive amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this moment to thank 
my colleague, a new Member of the Congress of the United States who 
serves on the Financial Services Committee, for introducing, 
supporting, and working for this legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas will be postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

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


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Huizenga

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 229, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 565]

                               AYES--184

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)

[[Page H8241]]


     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--229

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

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Babin
     Beatty
     Bishop (NC)
     Carter (TX)
     Clyburn
     Eshoo
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gomez
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Granger
     Lawson (FL)
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Radewagen
     Richmond
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Schakowsky
     Weber (TX)
     Williams
     Wright
     Yoho

                              {time}  1053

  Ms. WATERS, Mrs. LURIA, Messrs. CASTEN of Illinois, VAN DREW, LUJAN, 
GARCIA of Illinois, COURTNEY, and SCHNEIDER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. POSEY, BUDD, SMITH of Missouri, SCHWEIKERT, SMITH of 
Nebraska, ROONEY of Florida, and GAETZ changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 565.
  Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Chair, I inadvertently missed one vote today. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 565.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hill of Arkansas

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 224, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 566]

                               AYES--187

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

                               NOES--224

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey

[[Page H8242]]


     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Babin
     Beatty
     Bishop (NC)
     Blumenauer
     Carter (TX)
     Clyburn
     Eshoo
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Grijalva
     Kaptur
     Lawson (FL)
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Radewagen
     Richmond
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Weber (TX)
     Williams
     Wright
     Yoho

                              {time}  1059

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McNerney). The question is on the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Neguse) having assumed the chair, Mr. McNerney, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
629, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 184, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 567]

                               YEAS--226

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

                               NAYS--184

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

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Babin
     Beatty
     Bishop (NC)
     Carter (TX)
     Clyburn
     Eshoo
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gosar
     Granger
     Lawson (FL)
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     Massie
     McEachin
     Richmond
     Rush
     Weber (TX)
     Williams
     Wright
     Yoho

                              {time}  1108

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

                          ____________________