[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.
____________________