[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 33 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2043-H2050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 899, UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION
AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 492
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. 899) to provide for additional safeguards with
respect to imposing Federal mandates, 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 Oversight and
Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered
[[Page H2044]]
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. 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 gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Resolution 492 provides for a structured rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act.
Mr. Speaker, every year, bureaucrats in Washington impose thousands
of regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. Those
mandates can be costly, stretching city and State budgets and making it
harder for American businesses to hire.
The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, H.R. 899,
will ensure that the people who write these regulations in Washington
know exactly what they are asking the American people to pay and
whether the costs of compliance might make it harder for family
businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat.
H.R. 899 will force Washington to think more carefully about
regulatory costs before it passes them on to Americans. This bill is
about transparency and accountability, and it is something Democrats
and Republicans can all support.
In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA,
legislation designed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing
unfunded mandates onto State and local governments or private
businesses without policymakers or the public knowing the costs of such
policies.
UMRA's main objective was to force the Federal Government to estimate
how much unfunded mandates would cost local governments and businesses
and rein in out-of-control mandates.
UMRA ensured public awareness of the crushing financial burden of
Federal mandates on employers and State and local governments. However,
UMRA has not been amended since 1995, and some subtle changes are
needed to preserve and improve on the act's initial purpose.
UMRA was a good bill, but over time, some shortcomings became
apparent such that the Clinton and, later, Obama administrations had
written executive orders to fix the loopholes within it.
As many of my colleagues can confirm, it takes a lot of creativity
and hard work to pass legislation as a member of a minority party.
When Democrats gained control of Congress back in 2007, I sat down
with my staff to think about legislative ideas that could gain
sufficient bipartisan support to clear a Democrat Congress. This bill
is the result of those efforts.
H.R. 899 has bipartisan DNA. It codifies those administrative fixes
championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and promotes good government
accountability and transparency.
As a testament to this fact, the bill is cosponsored by three of my
Democrat colleagues here in the House: Representatives Mike McIntyre,
Collin Peterson, and Loretta Sanchez.
I owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts in promoting this
commonsense bill.
I am especially grateful to Representative James Lankford, a
Republican cosponsor of this bill, who has worked tirelessly to promote
its passage here in the House. We wouldn't be here today without his
efforts.
A common refrain in this business is that nobody wants to see how the
sausage is made, meaning that the process of drafting and passing
legislation is so ugly that it would repulse people. In this case, I
disagree.
I am extremely proud of this bill and extremely proud of the process
by which it has been advanced in the House. It has been a pleasure to
work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure, and
I appreciate their support and counsel.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform and Transparency Act of 1995 was a model
for bipartisanship, and my hope is that my bill leaves a similar
legacy.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my friend, Ms. Foxx, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we continue down this path of considering bills that are
going nowhere. I sincerely wish my friends on the other side of the
aisle would stop this Conservative merry-go-round.
The majority leader called this week ``stop government abuse week.''
Abuse? Really?
My friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to ignore
the plight of middle class and working poor Americans, immigrants
hoping for a better life for their families, and denying the undeniable
impact of climate change, just to name a few.
This is even after shutting down the government for purely political
purposes and playing a game of chicken with the debt limit; and yet, my
Republican friends are calling routine government work ``abuse.'' That
seems like a stretch to me.
Abuse is when underregulated industries spill unknown chemicals into
the West Virginia water supply. Abuse is when coal ash pours into the
waters of North Carolina, when Wall Street bankers crash our economy
after taking advantage of underfunded and overworked regulators; that
is exactly the kind of abuse that the government needs to stop.
You want to talk about abuse? Let's talk about today's measure.
This bill will not make the regulatory process more balanced or
transparent. It will strangle it in red tape. It will not make
rulemaking more fair. It will tip the scales in favor of businesses
with the most resources.
Under this measure, improving access to health care and restraining
the financial institutions that have unleashed havoc on our economy
will become even more difficult.
It is nothing more than poorly disguised political fodder aimed at
stymieing the executive branch's rulemaking power in favor of some
corporate interests that run amuck on the environment and American
workers.
Most egregious is the requirement for agencies to provide the private
sector early consultation on major rules.
This would give well-funded industry an unfair advantage not afforded
to the general public and other stakeholders like public interest,
taxpayer, and environmental groups.
Clearly, the interest in amending UMRA only extends to certain
privileged parties.
If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to see what happens
when you allow private interests to run rampant without any government
regulations, they need only look to the smog-filled skies above China.
This bill also politicizes independent agencies designed to protect
the rights of hardworking Americans. The Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, Securities Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Board,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, as well as the Federal
Communications Commission--I might add they kind of left out the
Federal Reserve for some reason I don't understand--but all of those
other agencies will all have to answer to the whims of politics.
It also forces agencies to choose the cheapest regulatory option over
the
[[Page H2045]]
best. This is legislating the answer to the same kind of question that
a homeowner has to decide when hiring a contractor: Do you want it done
cheap, or do you want it done right?
Look, I get it. I understand where we are in the Congressional cycle;
but I think that it is unfortunate that my friends across the aisle
would rather score political points and write bumper stickers than
actually legislate.
While I think it is a good thing that most of these partisan measures
will never go anywhere, I can't help but point out that we should be
making better use of our limited time here.
We should be raising the minimum wage in order to give millions of
hardworking Americans the pay they have earned.
Nearly 5 years have passed since the last increase in the Federal
minimum wage.
{time} 1645
Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker makes less than $16,000
per year, which is below the poverty line for a family of two or more.
This is unacceptable. It is time for Republicans to end their
relentless obstruction and to join Democrats in an effort to provide
for the middle class.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I really respect and appreciate my colleague from
Florida, but there is nothing in this bill that would stop the
development of rules and regulations by the executive branch,
absolutely nothing. All we want to do is make sure that the cost of
those rules and regulations is totally transparent.
Also, I appreciate my colleague's saying that we shouldn't be passing
bumper sticker bills. We joked about this bill. The title for it, if
you abbreviate it, is ``UMITA.'' That anagram hardly comes trippingly
off the tongue, and it really wouldn't make much of a bumper sticker
for us.
He also indicates that this bill is going to be dead on arrival in
the Senate, so we should just give our attention to something else. I
know my colleague knows this: the House of Representatives is mentioned
very first in the Constitution. I believe the Founders intended for us
to do our job and to do it well here. We shouldn't be thinking ``it is
my way or the highway.'' This is a bill that has been cosponsored by
Democrats, and I believe it will get a lot of Democrat votes. The logic
from my colleague is that because this House is predominantly
Republican that we should at the outset just acquiesce to the Democrat-
led Senate or do nothing at all, but that is not how the legislative
process works. There has to be a give and take.
I believe the House will pass this legislation tomorrow, and if the
Senate wants to change it and send it back, fine--we will work it out--
because that is our job, and that is the way it works, but I reject the
notion that the Senate will not act on this bill. As I said, it is not
a Republican bill; it is a bipartisan bill. It has Republican and
Democrat cosponsors. My conversation with our Senate colleagues
suggests this bill could clear the Senate and be signed into law by the
President--this President.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that, last year, the President
signed 76 laws--64 of those came from the House of Representatives and
only 12 from the Senate, if I am accurate. If not, I will correct the
Record. It is wrong for us to say we shouldn't be passing bills in the
House because anything sponsored by a Republican will go nowhere in the
Senate since the Democrats control it, because the evidence from last
year, obviously, disproves that.
Mr. Speaker, since the 1995 passage of UMRA, experts across the
political spectrum agree that the bill has led to the generation of
important information about the potential impacts of mandates proposed
in legislation and regulations. However, since its inception, there
have been very few revisions to the law while various exclusions and
exceptions have cropped up, creating loopholes limiting the act's
coverage.
H.R. 899 builds on the success of UMRA by drawing upon executive
orders enacted by the last two Democrat Presidents to close loopholes,
streamline the cost-reporting process, and clarify the responsibilities
of those in charge with complying with these requirements.
Independent regulatory agencies like the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal
Communications Commission are currently exempted from UMRA. H.R. 899
will require even these independent regulatory agencies to analyze the
costs of their proposed mandates before they are imposed on the public.
H.R. 899 would also treat ``changes to conditions of grant aid'' as
mandates, triggering an UMRA cost analysis. Legislation or regulations
that force States or localities to make changes in order to qualify for
Federal grant aid would no longer be exempt from scrutiny.
H.R. 899 will guarantee the public always has the opportunity to
weigh in on regulations. Whereas UMRA only triggered cost analyses for
regulations that were publicly announced through a ``notice of proposed
rulemaking,'' this bill will require all regulations, whether a notice
of proposed rulemaking was issued or not, to complete cost analyses.
H.R. 899 will also equip Congress and the American people with better
tools to determine the true cost of regulations. Analyses required by
H.R. 899 will have to factor in real-world consequences, such as lost
business profits, costs passed on to consumers, and changed behavior
costs when considering the bottom line impact of Federal mandates.
Finally, H.R. 899 will ensure government is held accountable for
following these rules. If the requirements set forth by UMRA and UMITA
are not met, a judicial stay may be placed upon regulations.
This legislation is purely about good government. It is about being
open and honest about the cost of regulations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would advise my good friend from North
Carolina that I have no further requests for time and that I am
prepared to close or to reserve as she sees fit.
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague want me to go forward and close or
does she want me to reserve?
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we are not quite ready to close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, according to a report issued by the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, the number of economically significant
rules in the pipeline, which are those that could cost $100 million or
more annually, has increased by more than 137 percent over the past
decade.
Section 12 of my bill responds to such concerns by requiring Federal
agencies to conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal
regulation at the request of a committee chairman or ranking minority
member. The retrospective analysis submitted to the requesting member
and to Congress is to include:
One, a copy of the Federal regulation;
Two, the continued need for the Federal regulation;
Three, the nature of comments or complaints received concerning the
Federal regulation;
Four, the extent to which the mandate may duplicate another Federal
regulation;
Five, the degree to which technology or economic conditions have
changed in the area affecting the Federal regulation;
Six, an analysis of the retrospective costs and benefits of the
Federal regulation that considers studies done outside the government;
and
Seven, the history of legal challenges to the Federal regulation.
Since the duty to promote public accountability and transparency in
Federal regulatory policy is endless, this provision builds on the
strengths of UMRA by helping ensure ongoing compliance with legislative
intent.
This kind of ongoing monitoring, identified as a priority by section
5 of Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton, and by section
6 of Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama, is critical for
adapting to changing circumstances that shaped initial UMRA cost
estimates.
This helps ensure a fresh look at regulations to make certain they
remain
[[Page H2046]]
consistent with their initial purpose and have not become overly
burdensome, outdated, or unnecessary. This is just one of many
bipartisan initiatives contained in my bill that further underscores
the need for my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, section 3 of my bill has received praise from State and
local government advocacy groups as it would allow a committee chairman
or ranking member to request that the Congressional Budget Office
perform an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a
bill or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes
to a condition of Federal assistance being imposed on any respective
participating State, local or tribal government.
The purpose of this provision is to highlight costs the Federal
Government is passing along to State and local governments that would
otherwise remain hidden but borne by taxpayers regardless of which
governmental entity is taxing them.
CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin's statement before the Committee on
Government Reform on March 8, 2005, speaks further to this issue,
saying:
According to UMRA, the conditions attached to most forms of
Federal aid, including most grant programs, are not mandates.
Yet complying with such conditions can sometimes be
burdensome. In particular, States consider new conditions on
existing grant programs to be duties not unlike mandates. Two
often-cited examples of such conditions are the requirements
for receiving Federal funding under the No Child Left Behind
Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Those laws require school districts to undertake many
activities, including, respectively, designing and
implementing Statewide achievement tests and preparing
individualized education plans for disabled children, but
only if they wish to receive certain Federal education grant
funds.
In other words, these mandates escape UMRA's scrutiny because current
law doesn't define this type of cost shifting as a ``mandate.'' My bill
closes this loophole. The landmark Supreme Court decision, the National
Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, hinged, in part, on
this very issue.
Although the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion was not
technically considered a ``mandate'' under UMRA, it required States to
dramatically expand the program or risk losing all funding. For this
reason, the Supreme Court ultimately deemed this provision
unconstitutional.
Justice Roberts wrote that this portion of the Affordable Care Act
violated the Constitution because:
Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate
according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States
grants and require the States to comply with accompanying
conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether
to accept the offer. The States were given no such choice in
this case. They must either accept a basic change in the
nature of Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding.
In this way, the Affordable Care Act provides a contemporary, salient
case study in how important it is for legislators and the public to
have access to critical information concerning the costs of Federal
decrees.
My bill will put this important information in the hands of Congress
and the American people. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support
this rule and the underlying bill.
With that, I would be prepared to close if the gentleman from Florida
is prepared, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentlelady.
I indicated I was prepared to close, but I have been advised that we
need to occupy a little time as well. So I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and we will try to be slow about it.
Mr. Speaker, in this particular legislation, the minority views that
were developed allow, among other things, the following:
The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act would be an
assault on health, safety, and environmental protections. This
legislation would erect new barriers to slow down the regulatory
process, and it would give corporations an unfair advantage in the
regulatory process;
Section 5 of the bill would repeal language that excludes independent
regulatory agencies from the reporting requirements of the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act, with the exception of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve and the Federal Open Market Committee. I spoke to that
earlier. I found that passage strange.
{time} 1700
The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for overseeing the
UMRA process. Since the independent agencies would be under the
direction of OMB for purposes of UMRA compliance, this could compromise
the independence of those agencies.
Section 7 of H.R. 899 would create a new point of order in the House
of Representatives for legislation containing an unfunded mandate,
making it more difficult to enact legislation.
Section 8 would incorporate a cost-benefit requirement from Executive
Order 12866, but it would not include language from the same executive
order directing agencies to perform these assessments to the extent
feasible.
Section 10 would require agencies to provide impacted parties in the
private sector--but not other stakeholders--with an advanced
opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations. It would require
agencies to conduct consultations with private sector businesses as
early as possible, before the issuance of a notice of proposed
rulemaking. Expanding this consultation requirement only to the private
sector could allow businesses to have an advantage over other
stakeholders, as I mentioned previously, such as taxpayers and
environmental groups, with reference to the development of regulatory
proposals.
During consideration of this bill by the committee, one of the
Members offered an amendment that stated that any opportunities or
rights afforded to a corporation under this section shall also be
afforded to any interested individual. The amendment was rejected.
My good friend on the other side mentioned the fact that I pointed
out that we continue to have one House legislation that goes nowhere in
the Senate. And she pointed correctly to the fact--and I stand with her
if it needs to be corrected--that there were 76 measures that reached
the President's desk, and that 64 of them came out of the House of
Representatives. Not knowing all of the statistical imperatives, my
belief would be that of that 64 that came out of House of
Representatives, a substantial number of them had companion
legislation. I questioned whether or not this particular measure that
we are addressing today has companion legislation in the Senate, and
that is why I feel that it is not going to go anywhere.
Listen, one side is arguing that we need to start the 2014 election
right now and don't do anything else that is going to allow for both
bodies--it is true, as my colleague said, that the Constitution
mentions the House of Representatives first, but it does not give the
House of Representatives autonomy in the sense that they, and they
alone, can pass legislation. So there is a requirement here that has
not been being met, and that is that the Senate and House confer on
matters of legislation and then offer it up to the executive branch.
We seem to have circumvented that process. And what we are doing,
rather than pass, or at least address--I am fascinated by the fact that
I don't believe my colleagues have the courage of their convictions. If
we were to put a flood insurance measure on the floor not on
suspension, I doubt very seriously that it would not pass. It will pass
if it were to come to the floor that way.
I believe that if we offer up a reasonable minimum wage, I don't
think anybody in this country can say that $16,000 for a family of two
or more people is sufficient in order for them to be able to meet
requisites having to do with food and rent alone, let alone educating
their children or providing daycare.
I don't think anybody really is against those who paid into the
employment system receiving unemployment compensation, and yet we find
ourselves here repeatedly addressing a significant number of matters.
Someone wrote the other day, if they got a stain on their tie, it
would be because of ObamaCare. My goodness gracious, people, we are a
legislative body. We could be about the business of serious
legislating. That kind of legislating would require, among other
[[Page H2047]]
things, not just bipartisan activity as this legislation has manifested
itself as being bipartisan, but it would allow that we would really sit
down and talk through the things that are needed in this country.
There is nobody around that doesn't believe that we have bridges that
are in disrepair. I haven't found anyone that said that if we invested
in infrastructure, that it would not create more jobs in this country.
The people want us to do this, and not to do one-sided, one-way
measures that are not going to go anywhere anytime soon.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague on the other side of the
aisle. I frankly don't think there is much more serious legislation
around here than this piece, as I said earlier. UMITA doesn't exactly
come trippingly off the tongue, and it isn't the most scintillating
legislation out there, but it has great bipartisan support, which is
what my colleague said we should be doing. So I am curious about his
going off talking about a lot of other things other than this.
I will say, Mr. Speaker, that multiple provisions in my bill,
including sections 8 and 9, would codify general principles of good
government embodied in President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 and
President Obama's Executive Order 13563.
Section 8 closes a blatant, often exploited loophole inconsistent
with legislative intent and the spirit of the law. Again, I think this
legislation is doing exactly what the Congress should be doing, and
that is sticking with legislative intent and making sure that we are
looking after the fact that the laws we pass are adhered to.
Since title II of UMRA says that agencies must develop a written
statement describing the effects of their regulations on State, local,
and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, ``unless
otherwise prohibited by law,'' some agencies have concluded that
general statutory language limiting the consideration of economic costs
in setting regulations ``prohibits'' them from preparing a written
statement evaluating the non-cost elements.
Reasserting legislative intent, this section of my bill prevents this
loophole from being exploited for purposes of ignoring UMRA
requirements by clarifying that agencies must conduct UMRA analysis
unless a law ``expressly'' prohibits them from doing so.
This simple wording change makes a world of difference by clarifying
that agencies must conduct UMRA analyses unless a law ``expressly''
prohibits the disclosure.
Another way UMRA's cost disclosure requirements have been exploited
by ambitious rulemakers is by deeming a proposal an emergency and
thereby forgoing the notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPRM, process,
which is the avenue through which the public weighs in on proposed
regulation.
Without compromising the ability to issue mandates in emergency
scenarios, section 9 of the underlining bill removes the perverse
incentive for agencies to forego NPRMs by requiring them to fulfill
UMRA cost disclosure requirements within 6 months of issuing the urgent
decree.
Modest bipartisan provisions such as these highlight additional
reasons for my colleague to support the rule and underlying bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I am
prepared to close if the gentleman from Florida is prepared.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I will insert in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy,
and I will only lift one paragraph, and that is the last paragraph and
sentence.
``H.R. 899 would unnecessarily add to the already robust analytical
and procedural requirements of the rulemaking process. In particular,
H.R. 899 would create needless grounds for judicial review, unduly
slowing the regulatory process. In addition, it would add layers of
procedural steps that would interfere with agency priority setting and
compliance with statutory mandates.''
I guess, not surprisingly to my friends on the other side, ``If H.R.
899 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would
recommend that he veto the bill.''
Mr. Speaker, contrary to my friend's favorite rhetoric, the free
market does not solve all problems. Markets fail. We have seen that,
have we not? Government is the actor of last resort when the market
does not create the necessary incentives for businesses and individuals
to protect the public good.
What is more, Federal regulations are not strangling the economy or
preventing growth. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
As the Office of Management and Budget has reported, major Federal
regulations issued over the last 10 years resulted in annual benefits
from $193 billion to $800 billion, while costs are only between $57
billion to $84 billion.
It seems to me that an $84 billion investment with an $800 million
return is not a bad thing.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would raise the
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and give at least 25 million Americans a
well-deserved pay raise.
A business in the constituency that I serve did this on their own.
Jaxson's Ice Cream Parlour in Dania Beach raised it because they said
they feel the pain of the people that work with them and that they made
a fair profit and wanted to share it with them.
The American people are calling for an economy that works for
everyone, not just those at the top.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with 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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the underlying
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 899--Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2013
(Rep. Foxx, R-NC, and 4 cosponsors, February 27, 2014)
The Administration is committed to ensuring that
regulations are tailored to advance statutory goals in a
manner that is efficient and cost-effective, and that
minimizes uncertainty. By layering on additional, burdensome
judicial review and other unnecessary changes to the
regulatory process, H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act of 2013, would introduce
needless uncertainty into agency decision-making and
undermine the ability of agencies to provide critical public
health and safety protections. Accordingly, the
Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 899.
When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, the agency
must adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural
requirements of Federal law, including the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the
Congressional Review Act. In addition, for decades, agency
rulemaking has been guided by executive orders issued and
followed by administrations of both political parties. These
require regulatory agencies to promulgate regulations upon a
reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs,
to consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote
regulatory flexibility.
The President's regulatory approach has been consistent
throughout his Administration. We don't have to choose
between protecting the health, welfare, and safety of
Americans and promoting economic growth, job creation,
competitiveness, and innovation--we can do both. To this end,
Executive Order 13563 requires careful cost-benefit analysis,
increased public participation, harmonization of rulemaking
across agencies, and flexible regulatory approaches. Through
executive orders and other presidential directives, agencies
must ensure that they take into account the consequences of
rulemaking on small businesses. And, through Executive Orders
13579 and 13610, the Administration has also taken important
steps to promote systematic retrospective review of
regulations by all agencies, including encouraging
independent agencies to conduct such a review. Collectively,
these requirements promote flexible, cost-effective
regulation.
H.R. 899 would unnecessarily add to the already robust
analytical and procedural requirements of the rulemaking
process. In particular, H.R. 899 would create needless
grounds for judicial review, unduly slowing the regulatory
process. In addition, it would add layers of procedural steps
that would interfere with agency priority setting and
compliance with statutory mandates.
If H.R. 899 were presented to the President, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
[[Page H2048]]
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, as proud as I am of this legislation, I realize that its
passage on Friday will not be front-page news.
I understand that ``Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Band Together to
Close Technical Loopholes in UMRA'' isn't exactly a riveting headline,
but what we are doing here is important.
In Congress, we often focus our energy and attention on those issues
that are most divisive and controversial. There are real substantive
disagreements between the two parties and among the American people.
But Congress must do the hard things, and every now and then we get
an opportunity to do something easy. This should be easy. The reforms
in this bill are ``low hanging fruit.''
These are modest reforms supported by Republicans and Democrats
alike. Some of these changes merely codify executive orders issued by
the last two Democrat Presidents.
{time} 1715
Some of my colleagues have suggestions for improvement and have
offered amendments to this bill. Great. I welcome their suggestions.
Those amendments will be discussed here tomorrow in an open and
transparent process.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, every Democrat amendment that was submitted has
been included in this rule.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this sensible
legislation that will enhance transparency, accountability, and
awareness of Federal mandates. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform filed its report (H. Rept. 113-352, Part 1) to accompany H.R.
899 on February 14, 2014, it included an exchange of letters between
the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and the Chairman of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The letter from Chairman
Sessions was inadvertently dated February 11, 2013 and was intended to
be dated February 11, 2014.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 492 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
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 Education and
the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill 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. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1010.
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. FOXX. 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 192, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 79]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
[[Page H2049]]
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--192
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Blumenauer
Davis, Danny
Gardner
Gosar
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
Pastor (AZ)
Rice (SC)
Runyan
Rush
Schwartz
Upton
Walden
{time} 1743
Ms. BONAMICI and Messrs. NADLER and YARMUTH changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. POSEY, Mrs. LUMMIS, and Mr. ADERHOLT changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 190, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 80]
AYES--227
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--190
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Blumenauer
Davis, Danny
Gardner
Gosar
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
Pastor (AZ)
Rice (SC)
Runyan
Rush
Schwartz
Upton
Walden
{time} 1750
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H2050]]
____________________