[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 34 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2069-H2086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013
General Leave
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 899.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 492 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. 899.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0916
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. 899) to provide for additional safeguards with respect to
imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren 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.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Last Congress, the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee that
I chaired began studying the effectiveness of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, also known as UMRA, which was enacted in 1995.
We held three legislative hearings, and we inquired with the
Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs about various UMRA provisions and the possible
improvements to the law.
During our hearings, representatives from State and local
governments, and the private sector, they all came to testify about
many of the burdensome mandates that are actually not characterized and
not protected under the original Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The
analyses often failed to capture the heavy burdens of those regulatory
mandates.
UMRA's limited coverage is a concern because, as the chief economist
of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council testified:
``Unfunded mandates and regulations continually stifle private sector
growth and economic expansion.''
To help raise awareness about unfunded mandates and ensure more of
these mandates are captured by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, H.R.
899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, was
introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx. It is bipartisan
legislation that will close existing loopholes in the law and bring
more transparency and accountability to the regulatory process.
The legislation has the support of the National Federation of
Independent Businesses, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Conference of
State Legislatures.
The American Action Forum, which is headed by former CBO Director
Doug Holtz-Eakin, also supports the concepts of this bill.
H.R. 899 requires that independent regulatory agencies comply with
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Independent regulatory agencies are
currently excluded from review, but the regulations they promulgate can
impose significant costs and burdensome requirements.
Currently, regulations issued by agencies such as the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, they are
excluded from cost-benefit analyses otherwise required of other
agencies.
The Congressional Research Service found that between 2010 and 2012,
nine independent agencies issued 57 major rules. Those are rules with a
cost to the economy of over $100 million. But
[[Page H2070]]
none of those agencies monetized both costs and benefits in estimating
the impacts of the rules.
H.R. 899 codifies the principles of regulation in Executive Order
12866, issued by President Clinton and reaffirmed in Executive Order
13563, issued by President Obama. It also codifies Executive Order
12866's requirement that agencies conduct a cost-benefit analysis.
H.R. 899 requires agencies to consult with the private sector prior
to proposing a major rule. Currently, this requirement only applies to
State, local, and tribal governments.
In light of President Obama's emphasis on early stakeholder input on
the development of Federal regulations, there is no reason to exclude
private sector stakeholders from early consultation in this
requirement.
H.R. 899 allows the chairman or ranking member of any congressional
committee to request that an agency conduct a retrospective analysis of
an existing Federal regulatory mandate.
Again, President Obama even has acknowledged the need for
retrospective review, stating that each agency ``should periodically
review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any
such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed
to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less
burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.'' This change would
ensure existing regulations are actually reviewed.
H.R. 899 extends judicial review to ensure that agencies carefully
consider the least costly or least burdensome regulatory alternatives.
According to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, the
current judicial review provision included in the original UMRA ``lacks
teeth'' and ``offers no real incentives for agencies to deal
legitimately with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requirements.''
H.R. 899 ensures that Federal agencies and the Congressional Budget
Office estimate the entire cost of a Federal mandate, such as forgone
profits, costs passed on to consumers, and behavioral changes as a
result of a Federal mandate.
The administration said it is ``strongly supportive'' of the first
generation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. I am glad that we are
here today to make the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act even stronger.
I have stated before, and I will state again, making these reforms is
not an attack on the current administration. Many of the issues we are
here to deal with today did not originate in this administration, and
the solutions we propose will extend well beyond this administration.
It is the role and responsibility of Congress to ensure regulations
are consistent with legislative intent and they are written to cause
the least amount of burden and the greatest possible benefit.
I encourage all Members to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information
and Transparency Act. This bill is the second major piece of
legislation being considered this week that will add needless and
counterproductive red tape to the rulemaking process.
I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Oversight Committee
has jurisdiction over the executive branch and legislative jurisdiction
over governmentwide policies.
It is our duty and our responsibility to ensure that the Federal
Government is operating effectively and efficiently. It is also the
responsibility of every Member of Congress, and we must hold that
dearly.
This legislation may be well-intended, but it would have unintended
consequences that would make government less efficient and less
effective.
We rely on agency rulemakings to protect our children, protect our
workers, and protect our economy. The Coalition for Sensible
Safeguards, a group of more than 150 good government, labor,
scientific, faith, health, and community organizations, sent a letter
to the Oversight Committee. Here is just a portion of what that letter
said:
The Wall Street economic collapse, the British Petroleum
oil spill catastrophe, various food and product safety
recalls, and numerous industrial disasters, including the
Upper Big Branch mine explosion in West Virginia and the
fertilizer plant in West, Texas, have all dramatically
demonstrated the need for a stronger regulatory system that
is more responsive to the public interest. Congress should be
moving forward to protect the public from harm, not rolling
back the clock and weakening important safeguards.
Mr. Chairman, now is not the time for us to be adding unnecessary,
burdensome requirements to the rulemaking process. Our constituents
expect us to make them safer, not to make it harder for agencies to
keep them safe.
The bill would give private industry an unfair advantage in the
rulemaking process. Under this bill, agencies would be required to
consult with corporations before consulting with customers who would be
protected by the regulations. In fact, the bill requires agencies to
consult with private industry ``before issuance of a proposed
rulemaking.''
This means that, for example, if the Department of Agriculture
planned to propose a new food safety rule, corporate agricultural
interests would get advance access to the rule, and the opportunity to
shape it, before food safety groups, children's health groups, doctors,
or independent scientists are able to participate in the process.
I believe that businesses should have the opportunity to provide
comments on proposed rules. I think it is very important. They should
do it through the normal public comment process, however, just like
other stakeholders.
The bill also would put independent agencies in jeopardy of political
interference. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts
independent agencies from its reporting requirements. This bill removes
that exemption.
That would mean that independent regulatory agencies like the
Securities and Exchange Commission would have to submit their rules to
the Office of Management and Budget for review, which could undermine
their independence. I plan to offer an amendment to strike that
provision, and I hope it will be adopted.
This is a well-intended bill with serious, negative consequences. I
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting for the Record letters of
exchange between the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and
the Committees on Budget and Judiciary and Rules regarding the
committees' jurisdictional interest in H.R. 899.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2013.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Issa: On July 24, 2013, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported H.R. 899,
the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of
2013. As you know, the Committee on Rules was granted an
additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to
the Committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives over rules and joint rules of the
House.
Because of your willingness to consult with my committee
regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill
by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive
its jurisdiction over H.R. 899. In addition, the Committee on
Rules reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any
request by the Committee on Rules for conferees on H.R. 899
or related legislation.
I also request that you include this letter and your
response as part of your committee's report on the bill and
in the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions.
[[Page H2071]]
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the
Rules Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 899, the
``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of
2013,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R.
899 by your committee.
I agree that the Committee on Rules has a valid
jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 899 and
that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely
affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R.
899. As you have requested, I will support your request for
an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your
Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this
or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.
Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this
response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional
Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you
again for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Issa: I am writing to you concerning H.R.
899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act
of 2013. There are certain provisions in the legislation
which fall within Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Budget.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this bill, I am
willing to waive this committee's right to sequential
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving
consideration of the bill the Budget Committee does not waive
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill which fall within its jurisdiction.
Please include a copy of this letter and any response in
the committee report on H.R. 899 as well as in the
Congressional Record during any floor consideration of this
bill. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have
worked regarding this matter and others between our
respective committees.
Sincerely,
Paul Ryan,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the
Committee on the Budget's jurisdictional interest in H.R.
899, the ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act
of 2013,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of
H.R. 899 by your committee.
I agree that the Committee on Rules has a valid
jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 899 and
that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely
affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R.
899. As you have requested, I will support your request for
an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your
Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this
or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.
Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this
response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional
Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you
again for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Issa: I am writing concerning H.R. 899, the
``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of
2013,'' which your Committee ordered reported on July 24,
2013.
As you know, the Committee on the Judiciary was given an
additional referral on this measure upon introduction. As a
result of your having consulted with the Judiciary Committee
concerning provisions of the bill that fall within our Rule X
jurisdiction, I agree to discharge the Committee on the
Judiciary from further consideration of H.R. 899. The
Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 899 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our
committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the
bill or similar legislation moves forward. Our committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this or similar legislation, and requests your support for
any such request.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding, and would request that you include a copy
of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and
in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of
this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the
Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional interest in H.R.
899, the ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act
of 2013,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of
H.R. 899 by your committee.
I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has a valid
jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 899 and
that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely
affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R.
899. As you have requested, I will support your request for
an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your
Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this
or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.
Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this
response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional
Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you
again for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Issa), the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, let me start off on a positive note. The
positive note is the regular order in which we bring this important
legislation. We have held 11 full committee hearings, 30 subcommittee
hearings, produced three full staff reports.
Between the work of Chairman Jordan, Chairman Lankford and
Congresswoman Foxx on this legislation, there have been countless
thousands of hours of hard work to figure the right way to say it to
make sure it is narrow and consistent with multiple Presidents'
policies of both parties.
This legislation is filled with bipartisan support on each of the
bills. This is, in fact, not a Republican or a Democratic idea.
Mr. Chairman, that ends the positive part. I just listened to my
ranking member in opposition, and I was shocked--shocked--that he would
talk in terms of rulemaking shouldn't have the interference of the
private sector. Customers should not look at their supplier being
involved in the production of the regulation. Locking out people who
have to manufacture the goods, produce the labels, comply with the law
in the process is exactly what is wrong in government today.
{time} 1030
Mr. Chairman, the American people know full well that a regulation is
a law; a rule is a law. The idea that laws are produced in private with
often special interest groups on one side only at the table and then
put out as a take it or leave it, fight it if you can, is the absurdity
of the regulatory state.
Mr. Chairman, this commonsense reform is perhaps too little, rather
than too much, because, Mr. Chairman, the lawmaking that is going on in
the executive branch, including those so-called independent agencies,
is independent of our responsibility, as Members of Congress.
We are supposed to make the laws, and we are supposed to make them in
the clear light of day, with all sides having an opportunity to be
heard.
Rulemaking for too long has been, in fact, done in secret, shown up
without any input, and then those very manufacturers and producers and
growers--the regulated--have the option of trying to come here and
asking us to strike down or slow down the speed of some ill-conceived
regulation.
So this important legislation--something that President Obama
supported, something President Clinton supported, something that people
in the executive branch understand needs to happen--needs to pass here
today. I strongly urge the passage of this bill, this bipartisan
legislation.
[[Page H2072]]
I thank Chairman Lankford, and I thank Congresswoman Foxx.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay), a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 899, the curiously named
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. As a senior member
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which passed this
ill-conceived omnibus lobbyist gift bag on a strictly partisan vote, I
can assure you that the only thing transparent about this bill are the
invisible benefits it promises to help our economy.
It is shameful that the majority would advance reckless legislation
like this, which would seriously obstruct and weaken the Federal
Government's ability to protect clean air and water, ensure a safe
workplace, safeguard the purity of our food supply, provide safe
medications and medical devices for the sick and injured, and protect
consumers from predatory practices that have already caused so much
pain across this country.
This bill puts corporate profits ahead of protecting workers and
consumers. It would shackle key Federal agencies, like OSHA, the FCC,
the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and CFPB. It assumes that
the ability to regulate is always an evil to be evaded, delayed, or
defeated.
It would give business interests advance notice of proposed
regulations, but would exclude workers and the public from
deliberations. My friends, that is not transparency. That is not good
for our economy; and it is a prescription for more fraud and abuse,
more environmental disaster, and more workplace accidents.
H.R. 899 would greatly undermine the independence of Federal agencies
that the American people depend on to keep them safe at home and at
work and to give them a fair shake in the economy. This bill is not a
job creator.
It is a gift-wrapped offering to special interest lobbyists who
advocate for no new rules, no regulation, and no consequences for their
clients, regardless of how much damage they have caused.
H.R. 899 would not only delay or halt the rulemaking process by
adding time-consuming and redundant procedures, it would also strip
away the public's right to petition agencies when they fail to act.
These proposals would severely undermine our Nation's ability to
establish and enforce reasonable health, safety, and environmental
standards.
Given the multiple health and safety disasters in communities and
workplaces across the country that have occurred since the beginning of
the year, it is hard to believe that the majority would attempt to
weaken standards and safeguards for the public.
You know, Mr. Chairman, recently, the director of the CFPB, Richard
Cordray, came before Congress--testified before Congress and told us
that he knows there are no perfect rules in government; and there is a
process for Members of this body to challenge those rules and appeal
for changes in the rules.
We should follow that process and not come up with flawed legislation
like this.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlelady from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who is the author of H.R. 899 and has worked
on this concept for years, to try to repair the inconsistencies in the
original law.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding and for shepherding this bill through the committee.
I am especially grateful to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Lankford) for his tireless efforts on behalf of this legislation; not
only I, but the people of this country owe him a great debt of
gratitude.
I also want to commend him for employing such a wonderful staff. They
have been a real pleasure to work with and have been devoted to getting
this legislation passed.
I want to recognize the efforts of Chairman Issa and his staff at the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, including his eloquent
comments today. They have provided my office with five-star service.
Finally, I want to recognize my esteemed Democrat colleagues, Loretta
Sanchez, Mike McIntyre, and Collin Peterson. I am very grateful for
their support and wise counsel. They realize that this legislation does
not stop the Federal Government from adopting regulations.
And I am, frankly, shocked at the allegations by some of our
colleagues on the other side who say this is going to stop the Federal
Government from regulating and putting in commonsense rules and
regulations.
If you look up the definition of ``straw dog'' in the dictionary, the
arguments against this legislation this morning would fit the bill.
Every year, Mr. Chairman, Washington imposes thousands of pages of
rules and regulations on America's small businesses and local
governments. Hidden in those pages are costly mandates that make it
harder for companies to hire and for cash-strapped States, counties,
and cities to keep streets safe and parks clean.
Republicans and Democrats alike agree that each regulation the
Federal Government hands down should be deliberative and economically
defensible. This bill, H.R. 899, will ensure public and bureaucratic
awareness about the cost in dollars and in jobs that Federal dictates
pose to the economy and local governments.
There is precedent for bipartisanship on this issue. In 1995, Members
from both parties supported and President Clinton signed the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, which sought to expose Washington's abuse of
unfunded Federal mandates.
The 1995 bill was designed to force the Federal Government to
estimate how much its mandates would cost local governments and
employers, not to prevent it from regulating, but to make sure its
regulations were fair and efficient.
For the most part, the 1995 law has worked very well; but over the
years, weaknesses in that law have been revealed--weaknesses that some
government agencies and independent regulatory bodies have exploited.
My bill, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, will
correct these oversights and put some weight behind UMRA to ensure no
government body purposefully or accidentally skirts public scrutiny
when jobs and scarce resources are at stake.
H.R. 899, Mr. Chairman, has bipartisan DNA. It codifies
administrative fixes championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and
promotes good government, accountability, and transparency, something
we all believe in. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support
this commonsense bipartisan bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a member of our committee.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, my good friend from
Maryland, Elijah Cummings.
Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my good friend, Ms. Foxx from North
Carolina; and I don't doubt her commitment to try to rein in unfunded
mandates, and I certainly supported the 1995 effort, as somebody
working at that time in local government, because local governments are
burdened with many unfunded Federal mandates. No Child Left Behind, for
example, comes to mind.
This legislation before us today, however, is not a simple extension
of unfunded mandates. It is something else. Mr. Chairman, any lingering
doubt about this week's Republican assault, which is orchestrated on
the regulatory process as designed to benefit corporate interests,
should be laid to rest with this bill.
Agencies are already required to consult with any interested party
during the rulemaking process through a robust public participation and
comment period. This bill, however, would single out private sector
special interests and give them special treatment and an unfair
advantage by requiring agencies to consult with them before a rule is
even proposed.
The bill further subverts existing law by opening the door for
opponents of regulation or delay to invalidate rules through frivolous
litigation. Current law expressly prohibits the courts from blocking a
new rule based on the advocacy of an agency's analysis. This bill would
expand judicial review to give
[[Page H2073]]
for-profit special interests a new tool to tie up regulations with
unnecessary litigation.
I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that
agencies are currently required by existing law and executive order to
consider all regulatory alternatives to promote flexibility and to
promulgate regulations based on a reasonable determination that the
benefits, in fact, justify the costs. That is already in existing law.
Agencies are also required to conduct cost-benefit analyses and
increase public participation for all interested parties, not just
corporate special interests. Of course, House Republicans also fail to
acknowledge that the Obama administration has directed agencies to
harmonize rulemaking across agencies and conduct a systematic review of
existing regulations to reduce outdated or redundant rules.
Mr. Chairman, if my Republican friends really want to do something
meaningful about unfunded mandates, they could work with us to correct
the historic failures of the Federal Government to meet its financial
obligations to our cash-strapped State and local partners, rather than
catering to special, big corporate interests with well-paid lobbyists.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding, Mr.
Chairman, and I appreciate his leadership on the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
He has only been in this institution for 3 years, but he brought with
him, when he came, a heart of service that he has been applying his
entire lifetime; and it is that heart of service that I think has
enabled him to work in a bipartisan way across the aisle.
I will say that it is not without a heavy heart, Mr. Chairman, that I
hear folks talk about a Republican assault, a majority this,
conservatives that; there are some things that happen in this
institution that are party line events. There are things that happen in
this institution that are Republicans driving in one way and Democrats
driving in the other.
But this is an openness bill today, and by its very introduction, Mr.
Chairman--I have a copy of the bill here; it is available for anyone to
read online--the very first thing they will see when they open up this
piece of legislation are the men and women who came together to offer
it.
Now, one of those people is my good friend, the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Lankford from Oklahoma; but so, too, is the
gentlelady from California, Loretta Sanchez, who believes in this piece
of legislation--not just believes it passing on the floor today, but
believes in being a part of the process that drives this forward.
{time} 0945
Yes, we heard from my friend, Virginia Foxx, Republican from North
Carolina, but also among the original cosponsors bringing this
legislation forward, Mike McIntyre, Democrat, from North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is about one thing and one thing only, and
that is providing more information and more transparency to all the
stakeholders in the process. There are things that are worth doing and
there are things that are worth using the power of government to do,
but if we are proud of what those things are, we should be proud of
sharing that information.
When you get in a car today, Mr. Chairman, there are airbags
everywhere. I can't even count the number of airbags when I rent a car
these days. Old cars that folks drive, they don't have them, but the
new cars do. I don't know what it costs to put that airbag in. I don't
know what it cost to promulgate that regulation. I would like to know.
But I promise you that, if we were to look at those numbers, we would
say it is worth it. It is worth it.
Regulatory burdens on this economy--and we are seeing GDP revised
down again today, Mr. Chairman--are undeniable. Maybe they are worth
it, but the burden is undeniable. Let's just tell folks what that
burden is, and then let's come together and decide whether or not it is
something worth doing.
This is not a partisan bill today, Mr. Chairman; this is a bipartisan
bill. This isn't about hiding the ball today; this is about
transparency. This bill is not about dividing folks; this is about,
again, what my friend from Oklahoma has been about since the day he
showed up in this institution, and that is bringing people together
around tough challenges, but challenges that this institution can rise
to do.
I am very proud of the many, many hearings that have been held, the
many, many hours of effort that have been invested, and I am pleased to
support this legislation on the floor here today, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each
side has remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 18 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Oklahoma has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most problematic provisions of this bill is
the section that expands judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, also known as UMRA. UMRA currently allows a party to
challenge in court whether an agency performed the written statement
required under UMRA describing the agency's analysis. A court may
require the agency to prepare the written statement if the agency fails
to do so. The law explicitly provides, however, that a court cannot use
the inadequacy of an agency's UMRA statement or an agency's failure to
prepare a written statement as a basis to hold up a rule.
Here is what the statute says:
The inadequacy or failure to prepare such a statement,
including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate,
analysis, statement, or description or written plan shall not
be used as a basis for staying, enjoining, invalidating, or
otherwise affecting such agency rule.
The bill would change the statute to allow courts to review the
adequacy of an agency's analysis under UMRA and to allow rules to be
delayed or invalidated based on the inadequacy of an agency's
statement. This clearly contradicts the intent of the original statute.
The administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy just
yesterday saying that, if H.R. 899 were presented to the President in
its current form, he would veto the legislation.
The statement said:
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, and, in addition, it would add layers of procedural
steps that would interfere with the agency's priority setting
and compliance with statutory mandates.
There is another allegation that has been made that I want to
address, and that is the allegation that there has been a tsunami of
rules issued under President Obama. This is simply inaccurate.
President Bush issued 14,387 rules in his first 4 years in office.
President Obama issued 13,238 in his first term. That is over 1,000
fewer rules than President Bush issued in the same period of time.
According to the Government Accountability Office, agencies published
the lowest numbers of rules in 2012 since GAO began keeping data in
1997. GAO found that the first half of 2013 was also on pace to be
another record low year. The Office of Management and Budget in its
draft 2013 report to Congress on benefits and costs of Federal
regulations compared rulemakings across the 4 years of the Clinton,
Bush, and Obama presidencies. Rules issued in the first 4 years of
President Obama's administration had a net benefit of approximately
$159 billion. ``Net benefit'' means the benefits of the rule minus the
cost. Rules issued in the first term of President Bush's administration
had a net benefit of $60 billion, and rules under President Clinton's
first term had a net benefit of $30 billion. That means that the rules
under President Obama had a bigger net benefit than the Bush
administration and the Clinton administration combined.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few brief comments. I
yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have the opportunity to be able to just
dialogue a little bit about some of the things we
[[Page H2074]]
just heard about, things like judicial review.
It is a belief of many people on this side of the aisle and the other
side of the aisle that agencies are not infallible. They do make
mistakes at times, and there are times that an agency will make an
estimate on a cost, and it is, let's say, $90 million, just under the
$100 million threshold. And someone wants to challenge it and says, how
did you do the math on that that you ended up just under the major rule
threshold?
There is a reason to be able to go back and evaluate some of these
things and to have the opportunity to go through a judicial review so
in a moment of judicial review there can be a conversation to say,
let's check the math before these decisions are made to be able to
evaluate, because there has been a large increase in major rules. And
while I understand that around election time there was a slowdown of
regulations that came up, if you look at the first 5 years of this
administration, of their 13,000 rules that were promulgated, 330 of
them are classified as major rules--330 of those, major rules--defined
as having an estimated annual economic impact of $100 million or more.
It is a very serious issue to be able to put that many new rules with
that large of an impact. It does have a change. And while I understand
that some would say this benefits to the economy, what has happened is,
year after year for the last several years, CBO comes back and looks at
our long-term economic forecast and gives a slower forecast.
In 2014 again, they have come out and said that, in this current
economy with what is happening, it is another slowdown and another over
$1 trillion loss in our economy that CBO has estimated over the next 10
years because the economy continues to slow down. We are just asking
the question, is it possible? Because so many major regulations are
coming out and no one has had a check on that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from North
Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
his leadership and for his passion.
This is one of those areas, quite frankly, as we look at unfunded
mandates, that is taking the power from Washington, D.C., and giving it
back to the elected officials in our States, our county governments,
and our cities.
The gentleman from Virginia, from the other side, earlier said that
certainly he supported this when he was a local official elected there
in Virginia, and rightly so. Because I can share a personal story, Mr.
Chairman, from a senator, Jim Davis, from my home State who was a
county commissioner and now a State senator. I asked him, why do you
have such a hard time balancing the budget here in the State? And he
gave me two words: unfunded mandates.
Why is that? Because we continue to pass regulation after regulation
after regulation, send them down to the States and ask the States to
deal with them. The States say, well, we don't have money to implement
this. They send it even further, to the county governments. So what
happens is that property taxes go up at the local level, State income
taxes go up there, all because we believe that we know what is best
here in Washington, D.C., on how to implement rules and regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that during the first term of the Obama
administration we saw a 10 percent increase in regulatory budgets. Now,
that is a 10 percent increase in regulatory budgets when the average
American hardworking taxpayer saw their budgets go down.
There is something wrong with this, Mr. Chairman. And as we start to
look at this, there was a study in 2011--a study in 2011--that said,
with each 5 percent reduction in regulatory process, you can create 1.2
million jobs. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a problem with creating jobs
here, and this is a commonsense solution to rein in what is happening
here in Washington, D.C., and allow that control to go back to the
States and local government.
So the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is this: to vote against this is a
vote that says that we know better how to do business here in
Washington, D.C., than the elected officials in State, county, and
local governments. I can tell you that the best decisions are made at
those local and State levels. I think it is high time that we come back
and roll it back in this simple process to make sure that these
regulatory reforms and the unfunded mandates that accompany them truly
are not a burden on those hardworking American taxpayers.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I would like to inquire as to whether the other side
has additional speakers.
Mr. LANKFORD. We do not, sir. We are prepared to close.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will close. I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to go back to the legislative
history of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the law that would
be amended by this bill today. The Senate report on the bill that was
signed into law said:
The primary purpose of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act of 1995, is to start the process of redefining the
relationship between the Federal Government and State, local,
and tribal governments. In addition, the bill would require
an assessment of legislative and regulatory proposals on the
private sector. The bill accomplishes this purpose by
ensuring that the impact of legislative and regulatory
proposals on those governments and the private sector are
given full consideration in Congress and the executive branch
before they are acted upon.
The bill we are considering today goes far beyond the purposes of the
original law. This bill goes beyond simply ensuring that the Federal
Government considers the potential impact of a regulation on State and
local governments or the private sector. Instead, the bill would put
the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of our own
constituents. Something is wrong with that picture.
Members should vote against this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
{time} 1000
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
bill. It is a simple, straightforward bill that asks a couple of quick
questions: Do the people of America work for the Federal Government, or
does the Federal Government work for the people of America? It is a
straightforward question. This bill requires that the Federal
Government and every agency have a conversation with the people they
regulate to make sure that they actually understand what they are doing
when they regulate.
I understand full well, there are plenty of well-meaning people here
in Washington, D.C., who are serving our Nation faithfully, but they do
not know every State in the country. They don't know every business in
the country. That is not what they do full time. They manage here for
the Federal Government full time, but they are given the responsibility
to be able to promulgate rules and regulations that they may or may not
have any idea even how that will be accomplished when they get there,
or the real cost of that. The estimates that occasionally come up for
the different costs we find out later are much, much higher than were
ever estimated by a Federal agency.
So this bill does a few things.
In 1995, we said we are not going to put unfunded mandates on cities,
States, and counties or tribes unless there is a compelling reason to
do so, and then we could override and do that. This bill says that
should be true of the American people as a whole, that we should not
pour out some unfunded mandates across the entire economy unless there
is some compelling reason to do so, and then Congress still has the
authority to do that at that point, if needed.
This also says there should be some sort of judicial review so if
someone in some agency makes a mistake, which we all as humans do,
there is an opportunity to be able to respond to that, and an outlet
where they can go to get justification for that, rather than having to
go back to the agency that created the rule to say, Would you please
change it? They say, No, but you can appeal it to the person in the
cubicle next to me, appeal it to them. They says let's go to an outside
entity. That seems to be an American system, that when you have a
difference of opinion, you have an opportunity to be able to resolve
that with someone outside the system.
[[Page H2075]]
This is an opportunity to reconnect the Federal Government back to
the people that we are sent to represent and to say it is essential
that we close the loopholes that exempt out some agencies, that we
close the loopholes that allow agencies to move forward on putting down
major regulations without evaluating those things, and we allow a
distinct opportunity for the American people and their own government
to have dialogue again and to say if we are going to resolve our
differences on this and we are going to provide safety and security for
people across the Nation, let's do it together in the least costly,
least burdensome way possible.
I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to stand with me
to provide greater transparency and greater conversation to the
American people and their own government.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 899
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 ``Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is--
(1) to improve the quality of the deliberations of Congress
with respect to proposed Federal mandates by--
(A) providing Congress and the public with more complete
information about the effects of such mandates; and
(B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after
focused deliberation on their effects; and
(2) to enhance the ability of Congress and the public to
identify Federal mandates that may impose undue harm on
consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, and State,
local, and tribal governments.
SEC. 3. PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE STUDIES ON
POLICIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF
GRANT AID.
Section 202(g) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 602(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Additional studies.--At the request of any Chairman
or ranking member of the minority of a Committee of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director shall
conduct 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 State, local, or tribal governments
participating in the Federal assistance program concerned or,
in the case of a bill or joint resolution that authorizes
such sums as are necessary, an assessment of an estimated
level of funding compared to such costs.''.
SEC. 4. CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT COSTS TO REFLECT
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRACTICE.
Section 421(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``incur or''
before ``be required''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``to spend''
the following: ``or could forgo in profits, including costs
passed on to consumers or other entities taking into account,
to the extent practicable, behavioral changes,''.
SEC. 5. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO
INCLUDE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY INDEPENDENT
REGULATORY AGENCIES.
Paragraph (1) of section 421 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658) is amended by striking ``, but
does not include independent regulatory agencies'' and
inserting ``, except it does not include the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee''.
SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO REPLACE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WITH OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY
AFFAIRS.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4;
2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 103(c) (2 U.S.C. 1511(c))--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Office of
Management and Budget'' and inserting ``Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs''; and
(B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and
Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs'';
(2) in section 205(c) (2 U.S.C. 1535(c))--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``OMB''; and
(B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and
Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs''; and
(3) in section 206 (2 U.S.C. 1536), by striking ``Director
of the Office of Management and Budget'' and inserting
``Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs''.
SEC. 7. APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE POINT OF ORDER TO PRIVATE SECTOR
MANDATES.
Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(2) by inserting ``or 424(b)(1)'' after ``section
424(a)(1)''.
SEC. 8. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.
Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.
``(a) In General.--Each agency shall, unless otherwise
expressly prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector (other than to the extent that such
regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set
forth in law) in accordance with the following principles:
``(1) Each agency shall identify the problem that it
intends to address (including, if applicable, the failures of
private markets or public institutions that warrant new
agency action) as well as assess the significance of that
problem.
``(2) Each agency shall examine whether existing
regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed to,
the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and
whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified
to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively.
``(3) Each agency shall identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such
as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information
upon which choices can be made by the public.
``(4) If an agency determines that a regulation is the best
available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it
shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective
manner to achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, each
agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency,
predictability, the costs of enforcement and compliance (to
the government, regulated entities, and the public),
flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity.
``(5) Each agency shall assess both the costs and the
benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that
some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or
adopt a regulation, unless expressly prohibited by law, only
upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
``(6) Each agency shall base its decisions on the best
reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and
other information concerning the need for, and consequences
of, the intended regulation.
``(7) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative
forms of regulation and shall, to the extent feasible,
specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt.
``(8) Each agency shall avoid regulations that are
inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other
regulations or those of other Federal agencies.
``(9) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to minimize
the costs of the cumulative impact of regulations.
``(10) Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple
and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the
potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such
uncertainty.
``(b) Regulatory Action Defined.--In this section, the term
`regulatory action' means any substantive action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking
and notices of proposed rulemaking.''.
SEC. 9. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY
SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by
law, before promulgating any general notice of proposed
rulemaking or any final rule, or within six months after
promulgating any final rule that was not preceded by a
general notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed
rulemaking or final rule includes a Federal mandate that may
result in an annual effect on State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, in the aggregate of
$100,000,000 or more in any 1 year, the agency shall prepare
a written statement containing the following:
``(1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking or final
rule, together with a reasonably detailed description of the
need for the proposed rulemaking or final rule and an
explanation of how the proposed rulemaking or final rule will
meet that need.
``(2) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of
the proposed rulemaking or final rule, including an
explanation of the manner in which the proposed rulemaking or
final rule is consistent with a statutory requirement and
avoids undue interference
[[Page H2076]]
with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
``(3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including
the underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the
proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the promotion of
the efficient functioning of the economy and private markets,
the enhancement of health and safety, the protection of the
natural environment, and the elimination or reduction of
discrimination or bias).
``(4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including
the underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the
proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the direct costs
both to the Government in administering the final rule and to
businesses and others in complying with the final rule, and
any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the
economy, private markets (including productivity, employment,
and international competitiveness), health, safety, and the
natural environment);
``(5) Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that
the agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably
feasible, of--
``(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate;
and
``(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal
mandate upon any particular regions of the Nation or
particular State, local, or tribal governments, urban or
rural or other types of communities, or particular segments
of the private sector.
``(6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of the
agency's prior consultation with the private sector and
elected representatives (under section 204) of the affected
State, local, and tribal governments.
``(B) A detailed summary of the comments and concerns that
were presented by the private sector and State, local, or
tribal governments either orally or in writing to the agency.
``(C) A detailed summary of the agency's evaluation of
those comments and concerns.
``(7) A detailed summary of how the agency complied with
each of the regulatory principles described in section
201.''.
(b) Requirement for Detailed Summary.--Subsection (b) of
section 202 of such Act is amended by inserting ``detailed''
before ``summary''.
SEC. 10. ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.
Section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1534) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and private
sector'' before ``input'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``, and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small business),'' after ``on their
behalf)'';
(B) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Guidelines.--For appropriate implementation of
subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and
regulations, the following guidelines shall be followed:
``(1) Consultations shall take place as early as possible,
before issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue
through the final rule stage, and be integrated explicitly
into the rulemaking process.
``(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of State,
local, and tribal officials and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small businesses). Geographic,
political, and other factors that may differentiate varying
points of view should be considered.
``(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and costs to assist
with these consultations. The scope of the consultation
should reflect the cost and significance of the Federal
mandate being considered.
``(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) seek out the views of State, local, and tribal
governments, and impacted parties within the private sector
(including small business), on costs, benefits, and risks;
and
``(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods of compliance
and potential flexibilities, and input on whether the Federal
regulation will harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws
in other levels of government.
``(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact of
regulations on the affected entities.
``(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of
comments by relevant parties but may not use those comments
as the sole method of satisfying the guidelines in this
subsection.''.
SEC. 11. NEW AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OFFICE OF
INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.
Section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1538) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
RESPONSIBILITIES.
``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide meaningful
guidance and oversight so that each agency's regulations for
which a written statement is required under section 202 are
consistent with the principles and requirements of this
title, as well as other applicable laws, and do not conflict
with the policies or actions of another agency. If the
Administrator determines that an agency's regulations for
which a written statement is required under section 202 do
not comply with such principles and requirements, are not
consistent with other applicable laws, or conflict with the
policies or actions of another agency, the Administrator
shall identify areas of non-compliance, notify the agency,
and request that the agency comply before the agency
finalizes the regulation concerned.
``(b) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--
The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs annually shall submit to Congress, including the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives, a written report
detailing compliance by each agency with the requirements of
this title that relate to regulations for which a written
statement is required by section 202, including activities
undertaken at the request of the Director to improve
compliance, during the preceding reporting period. The report
shall also contain an appendix detailing compliance by each
agency with section 204.''.
SEC. 12. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4;
2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 209 as section 210; and
(2) by inserting after section 208 the following new
section 209:
``SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.
``(a) Requirement.--At the request of the chairman or
ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of
the House of Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall
conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal
regulation promulgated by an agency.
``(b) Report.--Each agency conducting a retrospective
analysis of existing Federal regulations pursuant to
subsection (a) shall submit to the chairman of the relevant
committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report
containing, with respect to each Federal regulation covered
by the analysis--
``(1) a copy of the Federal regulation;
``(2) the continued need for the Federal regulation;
``(3) the nature of comments or complaints received
concerning the Federal regulation from the public since the
Federal regulation was promulgated;
``(4) the extent to which the Federal regulation overlaps,
duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal regulations, and,
to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental
rules;
``(5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions,
or other factors have changed in the area affected by the
Federal regulation;
``(6) a complete analysis of the retrospective direct costs
and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies
done outside the Federal Government (if any) estimating such
costs or benefits; and
``(7) any litigation history challenging the Federal
regulation.''.
SEC. 13. EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Section 401(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1571(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)--
(A) by striking ``sections 202 and 203(a)(1) and (2)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1)
and (2), and 205(a) and (b)''; and
(B) by striking ``only'' each place it appears;
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``section 202'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
the following: ``section 202, prepare the written plan under
section 203(a)(1) and (2), or comply with section 205(a) and
(b), a court may compel the agency to prepare such written
statement, prepare such written plan, or comply with such
section.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``written statement or
plan is required'' and all that follows through ``shall not''
and inserting the following: ``written statement under
section 202, a written plan under section 203(a)(1) and (2),
or compliance with sections 201 and 205(a) and (b) is
required, the inadequacy or failure to prepare such statement
(including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate,
analysis, statement, or description), to prepare such written
plan, or to comply with such section may''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those
printed in House Report 113-362. Each such amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 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. Cummings
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 113-362.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H2077]]
Strike section 5.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 492, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to strike
section 5 of H.R. 899. My amendment would preserve the integrity of
independent agencies.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts independent
agencies. The bill we are considering would remove that exemption. That
would mean that these agencies would have to submit their rules to the
Office of Management and Budget for review.
Congress creates independent agencies to be just that, independent.
Requiring these agencies to submit their rules for review by the White
House, no matter who is President, would be inappropriate.
Some of the agencies that would be impacted by this provision include
the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, and the Federal Communications Commission.
This amendment simply maintains the exemption for independent
agencies that is current in law. I urge every Member of this body to
support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, independent regulatory agencies impose
significant costs on our economy and often impose Federal mandates on
State and local governments and the private sector. The Securities and
Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the
Federal Communications Commission are just a few examples of agencies
that impose regulations without consideration of the actual cost or
impact on the public.
Now, this bill does not prevent agencies from creating regulations.
The amendment gives the impression that this will be a wild West, and
all of these agencies will be limited. It only asks them to consider
the cost and the impact of those regulations and to have some
conversation with people on how it could be done less burdensome or
less expensive.
According to a 2011 Administrative Law Review article:
Analysis conducted by independent regulatory agencies is
generally the minimum required by statute. In many instances,
the independent regulatory agencies appear to be issuing
major regulations without reporting any quantitative
information on benefits and costs.
OMB's 2013 draft report to Congress on the benefits and costs of
Federal regulations and unfunded mandates provides a limited view of
the cost-benefit analyses conducted by a limited number of independent
regulatory agencies. For major rules issued by agencies included in the
report, more than 35 percent were issued without any cost-benefit
analysis at all.
CRS reports that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2012, 57
major rules were issued by nine independent agencies, but none of those
rules included monetized cost-benefit analyses, and less than 50
percent provided any estimate as to costs at all.
The cost-benefit analyses under UMRA are essential for a transparent
and accountable regulatory system. Reporting on the analyses does
nothing to compromise the independence of these agencies, and we know
this because OMB already reports on whether or not several independent
agencies are conducting the analyses--including the Federal Trade
Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
Requiring that these agencies are covered by UMRA does not require
that OMB review or approve of the analyses, only that the agencies are
accountable for considering the costs and the benefits of imposing
unfunded mandates on State and local governments and the private
sector.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. As I close, let me say this, Mr. Chairman. Again, these
are independent agencies. Independent agencies could be required to do
cost-benefit analysis without requiring rules to go through OMB. This
bill allows the administrator of OIRA to hold up a rule if he or she
determines the agency didn't comply. I would urge Members to vote in
favor of my amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated before, it is entirely
appropriate for independent agencies to have to also review the cost in
the actual context of what they are accomplishing and the economy
itself. That is an appropriate thing for every agency to do. We should
count the costs before regulations are actually imposed on our economy.
So I oppose this amendment. I have great respect for my colleague, but
I have to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 113-362.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 13, line 6, strike ``and''.
Page 14, line 16, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 14, after line 16, insert the following:
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Treatment of Other Impacted Parties.--Any opportunity
for consultation afforded to impacted parties within the
private sector under this section shall be afforded to
representatives of all other impacted parties.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 492, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment on
behalf of myself and my good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Duckworth).
H.R. 899 boasts an Orwellian title that attempts to deceive the
public into believing that the Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act is simply an innocuous attempt to enhance
transparency--rather than the subversive legislative assault on public
health, safety, and environmental protections that it truly is.
H.R. 899 is simply an effort to throw a wrench into the rulemaking
process, ensuring that private industry is provided privileges and
rights far above any other stakeholder in the regulatory process.
In many respects, H.R. 899 represents the Mitt Romney principle on
steroids, for it appears that in the minds of our friends on the other
side of the aisle, not only is it a fact that ``corporations are
people, my friend,'' but under this measure, Republicans appear to be
embracing an ethos that treats corporations better than people.
Regrettably, this bill provides private corporations with an unfair
consultation advantage over every other stakeholder in the regulatory
process. That is indefensible.
Under this bill, Federal agencies would be required to consult with
private industry ``before issuance of a proposed rulemaking,'' yet it
does not afford the same level of consultation to average citizens who
rely on agency rules to preserve and protect their health, welfare, and
safety.
There is no justification for enacting an irrational statutory
framework that requires the Federal Government to consult with private
firms, such as a large agribusiness firm, prior to imposing a rule that
will impact that company, yet does not require consultation with public
health experts, or everyday Americans who will be forced to live with
the consequences of a given regulation.
I cannot defend a regulatory framework that would provide big oil
companies, for example, a guaranteed right to
[[Page H2078]]
weigh in before any drilling regulation is promulgated, but would not
require equal consultation with public interest organizations, such as
entities committed to protecting and preserving our Nation's
environment and natural resources, or the communities that could be
directly impacted by such activities.
To be clear, I strongly support the rights of industry to have an
opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules. It fosters more
informed, quality rulemaking, and benefits both businesses and our
broader society. Indeed, that is why our current administrative
procedures mandate that a public comment process be conducted to allow
any individual or corporation to participate and provide input and
feedback in an equal, fair, and open process. That is current law.
The amendment that Congresswoman Duckworth and I are proposing today
would simply ensure that all participants in the rulemaking process be
provided equal consultation rights with agencies. For example, as
Ranking Member Cummings noted earlier, if the U.S. Department of
Agriculture were to propose a public health rule affecting agribusiness
in an effort to protect the health of everyday Americans, our amendment
would ensure that not only the agribusinesses, but also food safety
experts, children's health organizations, medical associations, and
scientific entities would also be provided an opportunity to consult
with USDA prior to the issuance of the proposed rule.
I strongly urge all Members to support our commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chair, it may be a good moment to shine some facts
into this debate. I agree that expanding the consultation requirements
for the impacted parties is important. Those parties directed affected
by the regulation should have an opportunity to be able to voice
concerns about feasibility and offer sensible corrections from people
with expertise from years of experience. That is a large part of what
this bill does; when a regulation comes down, impacted individuals
should be able to come to the table to be able to discuss what is the
impact of this.
This particular amendment is completely redundant. It requires that
any opportunity for consultation afforded to impacted parties within
the private sector under the section shall be afforded to
representatives of all other impacted parties.
Well, UMRA already defines the private sector as individuals,
partnerships, associations, corporations, educational and nonprofit
institutions, but it shall not include State, local, and tribal
governments since State, local, and tribal governments are already
covered in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the original one. So I
have to ask the question: Who is left? If it already covers
individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, educational and
nonprofit institutions, State, local, and tribal governments, it covers
everyone already.
If you are impacted by legislation and by regulation, you should have
the opportunity to respond to that. We completely agree.
{time} 1015
It is important to note this is not the only opportunity to offer
suggestions and critiques though. Those not directly regulated by the
rule have an opportunity for input during the comment period as
required by the Administrative Procedures Act in the executive order.
This perception that somehow people are being locked out of the
process is incorrect. It is the people that are impacted, though, that
should have the first voice. That would be people impacted in the
community, that would be people impacted in business, or any kind of
government.
For example, under current law, taxpayers and public workers are not
required to be consulted prior to an agency proposing a rule that will
put a Federal mandate on the States and local governments, a mandate
that could require public entities to ship resources that could affect
hiring decisions or a reduction in public services.
Taxpayers, public workers, consumer groups, and anyone else who is
interested--but not directly impacted--have that opportunity to provide
input at notice and comment stage; but this amendment, however, appears
to repeat the consultation requirement that H.R. 899 seeks to provide.
Those Members who want impacted parties to have an early voice in
development of regulations that impose burdensome mandates on the
private sector ought to just vote for the bill. Adding a repetitive
requirement creates ambiguity about the intent of Congress, and for
that reason, I oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 90 seconds
remaining.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I don't quite understand the opposition
of my friend from Oklahoma; if it is duplicative, then it is harmless.
I think clarification to make sure that citizens have the same rights
as special interests and corporations is actually a good thing to
clarify. I don't think it adds ambiguity; I think it adds clarity,
which may be why my good friend opposes it.
I would also ask, at this time, a statement to every Member of
Congress endorsing this amendment from the Coalition for Sensible
Safeguards be entered into the Record.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards,
February 26, 2014.
Dear Representative, The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards
(CSS), which includes more than 150 labor, environmental,
public health, scientific, consumer, financial reform, and
public interest groups, strongly opposes H.R. 899, the
dangerous and harmful ``Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2013.'' This proposal would undermine our
nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental
standards as well as new financial protections. Given that we
have experienced multiple health and safety disasters in
communities and workplaces across the country in recent
years, it is the wrong time to thwart the progress of
necessary public protections.
While CSS strongly urges members to vote no on H.R. 899,
CSS encourages members to support the amendments offered
below:
Amendment #1 sponsored by Congressman Cummings (MD): This
amendment strikes section 5 of the bill, which would
eliminate the current exemption from the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act for certain independent agencies. This crucial
amendment would ensure that agencies that Congress designated
to be independent of the Executive Branch remain so. Further,
the amendment would ensure that the important regulations of
these agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are
not subject to this legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and
unfunded requirements and can be adopted in a timely and
efficient manner.
Amendment #4 sponsored by Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (TX):
This amendment adds Section 14 to the bill to clarify that
the requirements of UMRA as amended by this Act do not apply
if a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of
the regulatory action exceed its costs. This common-sense
amendment makes clear that regulations whose benefits to
public health and safety exceed the costs to regulated
industries, thereby making them good public investments, are
not legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and unfunded
requirements and can be adopted in a timely and efficient
manner.
Amendment #5 sponsored by Congressman Connolly (VA): This
amendment ensures that other impacted entities, such as
public interest organizations, are provided any opportunity
for consultation afforded to the private sector under the
Act. This commonsense amendment levels the playing field to
allow public interest organizations the same privilege and
access that the legislation only affords to the business
community and ensures that the regulatory process is fair and
open to all stakeholders in an equal manner.
Sincerely,
Katherine McFate,
President and CEO, Center for Effective Government; Co-
chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
Robert Weissman,
Persident, Public Citizen; Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible
Safeguards.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that I oppose
in government. Duplication is one of those. Clarity is best done when
it is clear and it is said one time and it is consistent.
It is already very clear. Individuals, partnerships, associations,
corporations, and educational and nonprofit
[[Page H2079]]
institutions are included in this. All those who are impacted can step
up in front of an agency and say: we will be impacted.
You are a person; you are a citizen; you are an individual. You have
an opportunity to be able to come and join into that conversation.
We believe strongly that you should have the opportunity, if you are
impacted, to get your voice heard. Again, the Federal Government works
for people; people don't work for the Federal Government. So when you
are impacted, you should also have a voice as well.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chair, I strongly support efforts to make sure
that government regulations are not overly burdensome and do not
needlessly harm business growth.
In fact the very first piece of legislation I introduced--the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act--sought to help small businesses lower
the costs of complying with federal regulations.
But I am very concerned that H.R. 899 goes beyond well intentioned
efforts to make the regulatory process more accessible to stakeholders,
and instead seeks to give big businesses a voice so loud that it drowns
out American consumers.
In particular, Section 10 of the bill, which would allow the private
sector exclusive early access to the rulemaking process, will give just
one stakeholder unnecessary and unfair influence.
Increasing stakeholder input in the rulemaking process is a worthy
goal, and businesses should certainly be a part of that, but we can't
govern only on behalf of one stakeholder.
Our government should work for all Americans, not just some.
And we have a responsibility to balance the priorities of our
society as a whole with the interests of business.
When we're talking about a rule that governs whether moms and dads
in Illinois can have peace of mind that the food their children eat
won't make them sick, or that a worker at a manufacturing facility in
my district doesn't have to choose between a paycheck and their
workplace safety--the stakes could not be higher.
The concerns of these Americans should not matter less than those of
corporations seeking to maximize their profits. They deserve a seat at
the table as well.
This amendment seeks to level the playing field and improve
transparency for all Americans.
It would simply give individuals the same rights provided to
corporations under this bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this common sense, good
government amendment that will stand up for the rights of all
Americans.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 113-362.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 14. INAPPLICABILITY OF UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT IF
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS SHOWS BENEFITS OF
REGULATORY ACTION EXCEED COSTS.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-
4; 2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.), as amended by this Act, shall not
apply to a regulatory action if a cost-benefit analysis
demonstrates the benefits of the regulatory action exceed the
costs of the regulatory action.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 492, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman for the time
and to the two managers of this particular legislation on the floor,
particularly to the ranking member for his leadership, and simply ask
the question: For those of us who have served in this body the time
when the unfunded mandate's original legislation was passed, what
possible addition this particular amendment can have?
Let me first start off by saying that I appreciate the good
intentions of work that is brought to the floor of the House; but I
want to remind my colleagues that, as we speak, the growing numbers of
the uninsured continue to rise, and the emergency unemployment
insurance has not been passed by this body.
In fact, not passing unemployment insurance is an unfunded mandate.
For what we do is we say to the States that 1.3-1.5 million-plus,
including family members, of individuals who have worked and who are
out every day looking for work are no longer the responsibility of
anyone here in the Federal Government.
After the States have maxed out on their 26 weeks, we simply throw
these people into the streets. I would imagine that States and
nonprofits may have to address their needs through homeless shelters,
through food banks, soup kitchens, and other municipality resources
that they can scramble together.
It is interesting that we are here discussing an unfunded mandate. As
we speak, millions of Americans are suffering because we have refused
to address an important issue.
In addition, the minimum wage has thrown throngs of individuals into
the claws of desperation on the lack of raising it, of which I have
signed a petition--a discharge petition to do so.
As I rise, I want to acknowledge my amendment, which specifically
indicates that, if the benefits exceed the costs, then this industry or
the industries or this particular provision would not be covering. It
clarifies that the provisions of the bill do not apply if a cost-
benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of a regulatory action
exceed its costs.
My amendment improves the bill by ensuring that regulatory actions
needed to protect the public health, safety, and environment can be
promulgated and implemented and not be stymied by dilatory tactics.
The Jackson Lee amendment is strongly supported by the Coalition for
Sensible Safeguards, an organization comprised of more than 150 public
health, scientific, consumer, environmental, labor, financial, and
public interest groups.
Let me say something that I think my colleagues need to know that is
distinctive about this amendment. There is a requirement that Federal
agencies consult with private corporations.
I heard my good friend say that the Federal Government is for the
people, not the other way around. But guess what? There is no
requirement for consultation with stakeholders or the public before
proposing any new rules. How hypocritical is that? I must consult with
private corporations--many of us represent them. We appreciate the work
they create--but none of the stakeholders need to be consulted with.
So I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you I am all for a cost-
benefit analysis, but the challenge of doing a cost-benefit analysis
comes down to who is doing the cost-benefit analysis and what are they
putting into it.
There have been multiple times that we have had conversations about a
cost-benefit analysis, and there has been a push back to say: well,
let's go back and check the math on that later and see if we actually
got the benefit that was proposed that we will receive for that
benefit.
A benefit analysis, in particular, is kind of under scrutiny by
academics, even under the Obama administration. As an example, the EPA
issued a new standard for mercury emissions and reported that benefits
of the rule were up to $90 billion a year, far above their $10 billion
a year cost.
[[Page H2080]]
Less than .01 of that $90 billion in benefits was attributable to
actual reduction in mercury, though; instead, nearly all the benefits
came from reductions in fine particles, a pollutant that was not even
the purposed target of the regulation itself. Fine particle cobenefits
accounted for two-thirds of the benefits of the economically
significant rules in 2010.
This administration has padded the benefit analysis with private
benefits. In the fuel economy standards, for instance, for cars and
light trucks, nearly 90 percent of the $338 billion in lifetime
benefits were benefits to consumers, such as reduced fuel consumption,
and--how about this one--shorter refueling times.
Private benefits account for 92 percent of the benefits in energy
efficiency standards for washing machines and 70 percent of the
benefits in energy efficiency standards for refrigerators.
Essentially, the private benefit accounting is a claim that depriving
consumers of preferred choices will make them better off because
benefits like fuel savings are worth more to consumers than consumers
actually realized.
To exclude regulations from an UMRA analysis, based on faulty and
misleading benefits analysis, would only encourage distortion. Further,
the point of UMRA is to identify burdensome new mandates for the
parties that have to bear the burden.
You see, that company bears the burden. That cost gets passed on
directly to consumers. So this ``private benefits''--that you are going
to get more benefit than you thought you would ever get or will ever
see--doesn't offset the cost they do see coming out of their paycheck
when gasoline is more expensive, groceries are more expensive, and
electricity if more expensive.
Often, parties who pay the cost of these regulations are not the same
parties that actually enjoy the benefits. Even if a rule is predicted
to have a net benefit, impacted entities should be made aware of
sizable new burdens imposed by Federal mandates.
For this reason, I do oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 90 seconds
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me quickly say that, in the
previous bill, it was well noted that there were exemptions dealing
with constitutional issues and civil rights issues; so my amendment is
in track, on line with the original bill that gave exemptions.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want us to be able to move forward on
this bill. I want the American people to know that their government
serves them and that individuals are able to be able to speak back to
their own government when their government is imposing a regulation on
them.
I think that is entirely reasonable for any affected party to be able
to engage in conversation with their own government. I think it is
entirely appropriate.
This is long overdue. The 1995 UMRA bill was written with large
loopholes that exempted out agencies, exempted out different entities.
It created an environment where it is beneficial to the agency to
distort the cost. Let's clear that.
Let's just get back to doing what we should do, not people trying to
sneak in rules, not people trying to sneak in a different cost-benefit
analysis. Let's just have conversation again between the American
people and the government that they are in charge of.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
analysis; but let me offer to him that, first of all, this particular
legislation will be subject to a veto threat because, as the President
has noted, there is already a robust, analytical, and procedural
requirement. I agree there should be that, and we already have it.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards has indicated that the Jackson
Lee amendment is a commonsense amendment that makes clear that
regulations whose benefits to public health safety exceed the cost of
regulated industries are good public investments.
This amendment is a necessary amendment. The Jackson Lee amendment
says if it is a good public investment, and it helps in order to
clarify some of the untoward provisions of this legislation that will
require an interaction with a private corporation, but never talking to
the public.
Mr. Chairman, if we are for the people, they should at least be there
to be inquired of: What do you think?
And finally, let us end the unfunded mandate of not passing
unemployment insurance extension and not lifting the minimum wage. That
is an unfunded mandate.
I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment
because it clarifies and it puts the people first. I join with my
colleague. This is a place for people. We are the ones--the people who
run this government. Give them an opportunity to consult under this
legislation. Support the Jackson Lee amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
My amendment is simple and straightforward.
The Jackson Lee amendment improves the bill by clarifying that the
provisions of the bill do not apply if a cost-benefit analysis
demonstrates that the benefits of a regulatory action exceed its costs.
My amendment improves the bill by ensuring that regulatory actions
needed to protect the public health, safety, and environment can be
promulgated and implemented and not be stymied by dilatory tactics and
unnecessary delays.
That is why the Jackson Lee amendment is strongly supported by the
Coalition on Sensible Safeguards, an organization comprised of more
than 150 public health, scientific, consumer, environmental, labor,
financial reform, and public interest groups.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 899, the ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act'' (UMRA),
would erect new barriers to slow down the regulatory process and 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
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), with the exception of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Open Market Committee.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 advance notice and
opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations.
Section 10 also requires 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
gives corporations an unfair advantage over other stakeholders in the
development of regulatory proposals.
During consideration of this bill by the Committee, Representatives
Gerry Connolly and Tammy Duckworth offered an amendment that would have
evened the playing field by requiring that: ``Any opportunities or
rights afforded to a corporation under this section shall also be
afforded to any interested individual.''
The Connolly-Duckworth amendment was rejected.
Section 11 would codify the role of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in reviewing agency regulations and require
that if the OIRA Administrator finds that an agency did not comply with
UMRA's requirements, the Administrator must request that the agency
comply before the regulation is finalized.
Section 12 would require that, ``at the request of the chairman or
ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of the House
of Representatives or Senate, an agency shall conduct a retrospective
analysis of an existing Federal regulation issued by an agency.''
This provision would require agencies to divert resources toward
conducting these analyses and away from fulfilling their missions.
Mr. Chair, as the Coalition on Sensible Safeguards says of the
Jackson Lee amendment:
[[Page H2081]]
This common-sense amendment makes clear that regulations
whose benefits to the public health and safety exceed the
costs to regulated industries, thereby making them good
public investments, are not legislation that is wasteful or
unnecessary[.]
I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards
February 26, 2014
Dear Representative, The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards
(CSS), which includes more than 150 labor, environmental,
public health, scientific, consumer, financial reform, and
public interest groups, strongly opposes H.R. 899, the
dangerous and harmful ``Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2013.'' This proposal would undermine our
nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental
standards as well as new financial protections. Given that we
have experienced multiple health and safety disasters in
communities and workplaces across the country in recent
years, it is the wrong time to thwart the progress of
necessary public protections.
While CSS strongly urges members to vote no on H.R. 899,
CSS encourages members to support the amendments offered
below:
Amendment #1 sponsored by Congressman Cummings (MD): This
amendment strikes section 5 of the bill, which would
eliminate the current exemption from the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act for certain independent agencies. This crucial
amendment would ensure that agencies that Congress designated
to be independent of the Executive Branch remain so. Further,
the amendment would ensure that the important regulations of
these agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are
not subject to this legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and
unfunded requirements and can be adopted in a timely and
efficient manner.
Amendment #4 sponsored by Congresswoman Jackson Lee (TX):
This amendment adds Section 14 to the bill to clarify that
the requirements of UMRA as amended by this Act do not apply
if a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of
the regulatory action exceed its costs. This common-sense
amendment makes clear that regulations whose benefits to
public health and safety exceed the costs to regulated
industries, thereby making them good public investments, are
not legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and unfunded
requirements and can be adopted in a timely and efficient
manner.
Amendment #5 sponsored by Congressman Connolly (VA): This
amendment ensures that other impacted entities, such as
public interest organizations, are provided any opportunity
for consultation afforded to the private sector under the
Act. This commonsense amendment levels the playing field to
allow public interest organizations the same privilege and
access that the legislation only affords to the business
community and ensures that the regulatory process is fair and
open to all stakeholders in an equal manner.
Sincerely,
Katherine McFate,
President and CEO, Center for Effective Government, Co-chair,
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
Robert Weissman,
President, Public Citizen
Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-362 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Cummings of Maryland.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
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. Cummings
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 224, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 86]
AYES--185
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
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
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
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.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
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
NOES--224
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
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
Hultgren
Hunter
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
Matheson
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
[[Page H2082]]
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--21
Bishop (UT)
Black
Calvert
Cramer
Fortenberry
Gosar
Hinojosa
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Maloney, Sean
McCarthy (NY)
Pastor (AZ)
Runyan
Rush
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
{time} 1055
Messrs. MULLIN, HUDSON, KING of New York, OLSON, RIBBLE, McKEON, and
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. ELLISON, MAFFEI, and GARAMENDI changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 86, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. HURT. Mr. Chair, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 86. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 216, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 87]
AYES--194
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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)
Davis, Danny
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
Gibson
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.
Jones
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)
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
Shimkus
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
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
NOES--216
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
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
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
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
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
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
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
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--20
Bishop (UT)
Black
Calvert
Cramer
Fortenberry
Gosar
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
Pastor (AZ)
Peters (MI)
Runyan
Rush
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stockman
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1059
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 232, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 88]
AYES--180
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
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
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
[[Page H2083]]
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
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
NOES--232
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cotton
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
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
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
Keating
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marino
Massie
Matheson
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Bishop (UT)
Black
Calvert
Cramer
Fortenberry
Gosar
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
Pastor (AZ)
Runyan
Rush
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1104
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). There being no further amendments,
under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, 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. 899) to
provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing Federal
mandates, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution
492, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
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.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GARCIA. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Garcia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 899 to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 14. EXCEPTION FOR REGULATORY ACTIONS AFFECTING VETERANS,
SENIORS, CONSUMERS, AND COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY
NATURAL DISASTERS.
The amendments made by this Act shall not apply to
regulatory actions if they have the effect of--
(1) providing hiring preferences and jobs for veterans;
(2) protecting patient safety in hospitals and nursing
homes;
(3) lowering the overall cost of health care, including
out-of-pocket costs for consumers; or
(4) protecting communities from natural disasters and
helping them rebuild in the event of a natural disaster.
Mr. LANKFORD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, this is a final amendment to the bill. This
will not delay the bill. This will not kill the bill. This will not
send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will proceed
immediately to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, we should all be able to agree that just as it is absurd
to say that all regulations are good, it is absurd to say that all
regulations are bad. Unfortunately, this bill does just that.
It assumes that all regulations are bad; it weakens or delays them.
Even those that advance important bipartisan priorities are going to be
hurt. That is why my amendment is so important. It will ensure that
this bill does not create unnecessary hurdles in several important
areas, including those that help veterans find jobs, keep health care
safe and affordable, and rebuild communities after natural disasters.
Mr. Speaker, there is probably no issue where there is more
bipartisan support than in the need to support our Nation's veterans.
Those who have risked and sacrificed more than anyone else deserve for
us to help keep them safe: veterans, veterans like my constituent
George Martinez, who found a job through the program for Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment, an important program overseen by the VA.
This bill will unfortunately weaken or delay regulations that help
veterans like George find jobs when they leave the service. It would
have delayed an important regulation that was finalized last year, a
regulation that requires contractors to set goals for hiring veterans
and list job openings so that veterans can apply for them.
According to estimates, this regulation could ultimately find
additional employment for 200,000 veterans. With unemployment for
veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan being at almost 10 percent, we
should not be delaying this kind of regulation.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment would also keep the bill from creating
unnecessary hurdles on regulations that protect patient safety. This
bill would unnecessarily create hurdles for regulations that protect
patient safety in hospitals and nursing homes, and lower out-of-pocket
costs of health care.
These are especially important issues in my home State of Florida
where 70,000 nursing home residents live, more than almost any other
State in the country. These are our parents, they are our loved ones
who should receive the best care possible in their latter years. That
is why we must ensure that nursing homes remain a safe place of rest
and care for our seniors and remain an affordable option for those
[[Page H2084]]
who need them. That is exactly what my amendment will do.
Finally, this amendment will ensure that the bill does not create
unnecessary obstacles for regulations that help protect and rebuild
communities after natural disasters. In south Florida, we are all too
familiar with the devastating effects of hurricanes and natural
disasters when they strike. Rebuilding communities in their aftermath
can take years, as my constituents in Homestead know all too well. That
is why we need to move forward with my amendment. We need to have an
amendment that ensures this bill does not weaken or delay regulations
that facilitate the recovery and rebuilding efforts.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when we face so many important issues, we here
in Congress need to come together and do what is right. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' to ensure that we support unemployed
veterans, keep health care safe and affordable, and protect our
communities from natural disasters.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 5
minutes.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, this bill assumes one simple thing: that
regulators are not infallible, they are just people. We believe that
the Nation will not fall apart if Washington doesn't have more and more
growing power. We believe that this Nation became strong because the
Federal Government had limited power. You see, I believe and we believe
the American people aren't looking for much from us; they just want the
unfunded mandates to stop. Someone in Washington decides they have a
good idea and suddenly everyone has to pay for their new good idea.
It seems obvious that before a major rule is put into place, the
regulators should actually have a consultation with the people that
will be affected to see if there is a better way to do the same thing.
It was 3 years ago that I walked into this Chamber. Many people know
I don't come from a political background. I have served in churches,
where, of course, there are no politics. I can tell you that the
American people do not want this city to tell them what to do. They
want this city to protect their rights and leave them alone.
As a new Representative, I was surprised that the vast majority of
businesses that I interacted with didn't come to me asking for
something; they came and said, how can you make this stop? Thousands of
small regulations are coming every day. In fact, I am sure everyone
read the Federal Register today. There is a new regulation that came
out today that decreases the size of an orange. You cannot be an orange
in America unless the Department of Agriculture tells you that you are
an orange, and there is a new regulation today defining an orange.
There are also 330 major rules that have come out in the last few
years that increase and have an impact on the economy of over $100
million each. The American people are fed up with Washington, not
because we can get nothing done, but because we are already doing too
much.
{time} 1115
Every day, people wake up to a new regulation. They can't wait to
read the Federal Register to see what happened to their business and
their life last night.
The opposition to this bill seems to be a fear that it will make the
government work harder. Our fear is that the government is already
making the American people's work harder every single day. People are
worried about how to be able to pay for things, and it is slowing down
the economy.
Every mandate that is passed, the economy slows down even more. In
fact, the CBO once again this year, just weeks ago, laid out their
forecast for the next 10 years, that the economy is going to continue
to slow down even more.
Listen, the prevailing attitude in this town that Washington knows
best has to stop. It is the responsibility of the States and the Nation
to carry out their own wishes. It is not the responsibility of the
States and the people to carry out the wishes of Washington, DC.
A lot of people all over this Nation can make good decisions, and
this perception that Washington is smarter than everyone else is
absolutely not true.
I come from a place that many in this town call flyover country. It
may surprise you that planes actually land in flyover country. And when
you get off the plane, do you know what you find? You find smart
people. People who balance their budgets, serve their neighbors, and
love their kids.
They are not helpless. Right when they finally get their budget to
balance or get their family back in place, Washington has a new plan
for their budget.
When the President said in his State of the Union that, ``The shift
to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require
tough choices along the way,'' many people didn't realize that those
tough choices would be on their own budgets.
In my State, electricity prices are going up. One of the electricity
producers faces new compliance costs of over $1,500 per meter--per
meter--simply because of a new aesthetic air quality regulation. It is
not dealing with health. It is just dealing with aesthetic air quality
regulations by this administration.
When families try to figure out their paycheck and why it is not
going as far anymore, they should ask the question: Why does gas cost
more? Why does electricity cost more? Why does corn cost more? Why does
beef cost more? Why does health care cost more? Why are local taxes
going up? And why is insurance costing more?
It is not the evil capitalists on Wall Street. It is the oceans of
new regulations that are taking every spare dime from Americans'
budgets because someone here in Washington thinks they know better.
Listen, whether it is a farm or whether it is on an energy platform
or whether it is this Chamber that passed a bill 2 years ago straight
down a party-line vote that told every American that they could not
pick the health care they wanted, they had to pick the one Washington
approved; they couldn't have the same doctor, they had to pick one that
Washington approved; they couldn't pay what they chose to because they
have to go to the hospital that Washington chose--by the way, the costs
are going to go up as well because Washington put a new tax on medical
devices, like a dental crown, a knee replacement, or a pacemaker, so
right when they are getting hit with medical bills, they are also going
to get hit with a new tax as well. What a great idea.
The problem is this government has grown and grown over decades. It
is time to turn this around. Now is the moment to give the American
people back what they need back, that is, freedom from the ongoing
regulations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 218, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 89]
AYES--192
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
[[Page H2085]]
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
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
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
NOES--218
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
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
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
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
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)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
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
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--20
Bishop (UT)
Black
Calvert
Cramer
Deutch
Fortenberry
Gosar
Johnson (GA)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
Pastor (AZ)
Runyan
Rush
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1124
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 89 I was delayed getting
to the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CUMMINGS. 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 234,
noes 176, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 90]
AYES--234
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Gardner
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
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--176
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
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
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
[[Page H2086]]
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
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--20
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Black
Calvert
Cramer
Deutch
Fortenberry
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
Pastor (AZ)
Rigell
Runyan
Rush
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
{time} 1131
Mr. CARDENAS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 86 on the Cummings amendment
on H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
On rollcall No. 87 on the Connolly amendment on H.R. 899, I am not
recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
On rollcall No. 88 on the Jackson Lee amendment on H.R. 899, I am not
recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
On rollcall No. 89 on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions on
H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
On rollcall No. 90 on passage of H.R. 899, I am not recorded because
I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
____________________