[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H249-H272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 27 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. 185.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1439


                     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. 185) to reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze and 
formulate new regulations and guidance documents, with Mr. Westmoreland 
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 Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The American people are now four elections and more than 6 years into 
the worst period after an economic crisis since the Great Depression. 
Despite some encouraging recent signs, jobs have not truly recovered. 
Wages have definitely not recovered. The rate of new business startups 
has not recovered. Instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at 
historic levels, real wages have fallen, and dependency on government 
assistance has increased. People have been giving up because they can't 
find a confident path forward.
  In this recovery, we are not recovering; we are losing something 
precious. We are losing what has allowed this Nation to contribute more 
to human happiness than any other nation in history. We are losing the 
opportunity to live the American Dream. What is that dream? It is the 
dream that if you work hard, if you take responsibility for your life, 
if you reach for the opportunity that your human potential makes 
possible, you will be free to succeed. You will be free to pursue your 
happiness. And as you achieve that happiness, your children will have a 
better chance in life than you did.
  All across this country, people who have been struggling, people 
whose jobs and wages have been disappearing, people who have been 
leaving the labor pool for the dependency pool, people who have seen no 
way possible to start a new business, can feel in their bones that this 
American Dream, the dream that they cherish and their children need, is 
slipping away.
  What is killing the American Dream?
  It is not ordinary Americans. It is not foreign enemies. It is not 
global phenomena. It is not natural disasters. More than anything else, 
it is the endless drain of resources that takes working people's hard-
earned wages to Washington, and Washington's endless erection of 
regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth.
  Today, the combined economic burden of Federal taxation and 
regulation is over $3 trillion, almost 20 percent of our economy. Of 
that, the larger part is the burden of regulation--now estimated to 
reach at least $1.86 trillion. That Federal regulatory burden is larger 
than the 2013 gross domestic product of all but the top 10 countries in 
the world. It is half the size of Germany's entire gross domestic 
product. It is more than one-third the size of Japan's. Most important, 
that burden is $15,000 per American household, nearly 30 percent of 
average household income in 2013.
  No one says we need no regulation, but who can credibly say we need 
regulation that costs this much.

                              {time}  1445

  America cannot possibly retain its competitive position in the world 
and create opportunity and prosperity for all Americans if the Federal 
Government continues to drop such a crushing weight on our economy.
  My Regulatory Accountability Act addresses head on the problem of 
endlessly escalating, excessive Federal regulatory costs, and it 
addresses it in clear, commonsense ways that we can all support because 
it is based on principles proven in bipartisan practice from Presidents 
of both parties since Ronald Reagan.
  What are those principles? Here are some of the most important: 
require agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative that 
meets statutory objectives; if needed to protect public health, safety, 
or welfare, allow flexibility to choose costlier rules, but make sure 
the added benefits justify the added costs; improve public outreach and 
agency factfinding to identify better, more efficient regulatory 
alternatives; require agencies to use the best reasonably-obtainable 
science; provide on-the-record but streamlined administrative hearings 
in the highest-impact rulemakings--those that impose $1 billion or more 
in annual costs--so interested parties can subject critical evidence to 
cross-examination; require advanced notice of proposed major 
rulemakings to increase public input before costly agency positions are 
proposed and entrenched; strengthen judicial review of new agency 
regulations to make sure the Federal Courts can enforce these 
requirements.
  In a nutshell, this bill says to every agency: Fulfill the statutory 
goals the United States Congress has set for you. Protect health. 
Protect safety. Protect consumers. Protect the vulnerable. You are free 
to do that, and you should do that whenever Congress gives you those 
orders, but as you achieve those goals, make sure you do it with better 
public input, better-tested information, and in the least-costly way.
  The minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen? America 
will start to save hundreds of billions of dollars it doesn't need to 
spend. That is real money that can be put to better use creating jobs 
and wages for our constituents, real money that hardworking Americans 
can use to start and grow their own businesses, real money that can be 
used to restore the American Dream, all without stopping a single 
needed regulation from being issued.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Members of the House, I strongly oppose H.R. 185, the so-called 
Regulatory Accountability Act. Under the guise of attempting to improve 
the regulatory process, H.R. 185 will, in truth, undermine that 
process. It invites increased industry intervention and imposes more 
than 60--6-0--new analytical requirements that could add years to the 
regulatory process.

[[Page H250]]

  They make no bones about it in this bill. As a result, H.R. 185 would 
seriously hamper the ability of government agencies to safeguard public 
health and safety, as well as environmental protections, workplace 
safety, and consumer financial protections. That is what we are 
debating at this moment.
  My greatest concern is that H.R. 185 will undermine the public 
health, safety, and well-being of Americans. The ways in which it does 
it are almost too numerous to list here, but I will mention a few.
  First, H.R. 185 would override critical laws that prohibit agencies 
from considering costs when public health and safety are at stake. 
Imagine, we would pass a law that would override critical laws that 
prohibit agencies from considering costs when public health and safety 
are at stake, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
  This means that agency officials will now be required to balance the 
costs of an air pollution standard with the costs of anticipated deaths 
and illnesses that will result in the absence of such regulations.
  At a hearing on an earlier version of this bill in the 112th 
Congress, one witness--our witness--testified that if this measure were 
in effect in the 1970s, the government ``almost certainly would not 
have required the removal of most lead from gasoline until perhaps 
decades later.''
  This explains why numerous respected agencies, consumer 
organizations, public interest groups, labor movements, and 
environmental organizations all strongly oppose this dangerous 
legislation.
  For example, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--consisting of 
more than 70 national public interest, labor, consumer, and 
environmental organizations--say the bill will ``grind to a halt the 
rulemaking process at the core of implementing the Nation's public 
health, workplace safety, and environmental standards.''
  Another organization, very much respected, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, adds that the practical impact of the measure before 
us now, H.R. 185, ``would be to make it difficult, if not impossible, 
to put in place any new safeguards for the public, no matter what the 
issue.''
  Now, I am not sure if the authors of this measure understand the deep 
criticism and reservation that the scientific and academic community 
have about the practical impact of this measure.
  Another, the Consumer Federation of America states that H.R. 185 
``would handcuff all Federal agencies in their efforts to protect 
consumers'' and that it ``would override important bipartisan laws that 
have been in effect for years, as well as more recently-enacted laws to 
protect consumers from unfair and deceptive financial services, unsafe 
food, and unsafe consumer products.''
  Do we understand what it is we are dealing with here this day?
  Further, the AFL-CIO warns that the bill's procedural and analytical 
requirements add years to the regulatory process--adds years to the 
regulatory process--delaying the development of major workplace safety 
rules and will ``cost workers their lives.''
  As more than 80 highly-respected administrative law academics and 
practitioners observe, the bill's many ill-defined new procedural and 
analytical requirements will engender ``20 or 30 years of litigation 
before its requirements are clearly understood.'' What do we have in 
mind? What is trying to be accomplished here?
  My next concern is that this legislation would give well-funded 
business interests the opportunity to exert even greater influence over 
the rulemaking process and agencies.
  We already know that the ability of corporate and business interests 
to influence agency rulemaking far exceeds that by groups representing 
the public. In other words, the groups representing the public already 
have less influence to influence agency rulemaking, and we are here 
proposing in broad daylight to make it even worse, much worse.
  But rather than leveling the playing field, this measure will further 
tip the balance in favor of business interests by giving them multiple 
opportunities to intervene in the rulemaking process, including through 
less differential judicial review.
  Finally, this measure is based on the faulty premise that regulations 
result in economically stifling costs, kill jobs, and promote 
uncertainty.

  While supporters of H.R. 185 will undoubtedly cite a study claiming 
the cost of regulation exceed $1.8 trillion, the Congressional Research 
Service, Center for Progressive Reform, and the Economic Policy 
Institute all found that a prior iteration of this study was based on 
incomplete and irrelevant data.
  In fact, the majority's own witnesses at a hearing on nearly 
identical legislation clearly debunked this argument. Mr. Christopher 
DeMuth, who appeared on behalf of the conservative think tank American 
Enterprise Institute, testified that the employment effects of 
regulation ``are indeterminant.''
  The other central argument put forth by proponents of this 
legislation--that regulatory uncertainty hurts businesses--has 
similarly been debunked.
  Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. 
Bush administrations observes:

       Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans 
     that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue 
     an agenda supported by the business community year in and 
     year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political 
     opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high 
     unemployment.

  That is from a Bush administrator, who was a senior policy analyst in 
the Reagan administration, Bruce Bartlett.
  Not surprisingly, the administration issued a strong veto threat just 
yesterday, stating that the bill ``would impose unprecedented and 
unnecessary procedural requirements on agencies that will prevent them 
from efficiently performing their statutory responsibilities.''
  Rather than heeding these serious concerns, the supporters of H.R. 
185 simply want to push forward without any hearings, markups, or 
deliberative process in this Congress with a bill that has absolutely 
no political viability.
  I urge, I plead with my colleagues to oppose this very dangerous 
legislation, and, Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who has 
worked with us across the aisle on this legislation for the last two 
Congresses. This issue goes back far before that as well. I want to 
thank him for his work on this.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 185, the Regulatory 
Accountability Act of 2015. This is commonsense legislation, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it. Our farmers, ranchers, and businesses are 
all feeling the burden of increased regulation, and we need to act to 
ensure that they are not regulated out of business.
  We all understand how difficult it is to pass legislation, but it is 
sometimes often even harder to get the regulations written correctly. 
Sometimes you don't recognize the legislation that passed when they are 
done with it. Rather than following the intent of the law, we have seen 
interest groups using the regulatory process to interpret the law in 
their best interests. This should not be the case.
  H.R. 185 will create a more streamlined, transparent, and accountable 
regulatory process and give the American people a stronger voice in 
agency decision-making. Specifically, the bill requires agencies to 
choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative, streamlines 
administrative hearings to provide for more stakeholder input, and 
provides for more judicial review of new agency regulations.
  Similar legislation received bipartisan support in the House in 
previous Congresses, and I urge my colleagues to again support these 
commonsense reforms.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, a distinguished member of the 
Judiciary Committee
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
185, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015, and on behalf of my 
amendment to protect jobs.
  H.R. 185 is a sweeping revision of the Administrative Procedure Act 
that

[[Page H251]]

convolutes the agency rulemaking process through numerous analytical 
requirements. These requirements, which are largely opposed by the 
Nation's leading administrative law experts, would cause years of 
delays in rulemaking or deregulate entire industries through rulemaking 
avoidance by agencies.
  As a result of this deregulation, H.R. 185 would seriously undermine 
the critical role of agencies in protecting public health and safety, 
undermining protections across every regulated industry, from 
consumers' health and product safety, environmental protections, 
workplace safety, to consumer financial protections.
  The only basis for this bill is the unsupported claims that 
regulations erode employment and economic growth. Contrary to my 
Republican colleagues' assertion that regulations kill jobs, a wealth 
of unimpeachable, bipartisan evidence has repeatedly and effectively 
debunked this claim.
  The Office of Management and Budget estimated over the last decade 
that major regulations benefited the economy between $217 billion and 
$863 billion a year, at a mere cost of $57 billion to $84 billion.
  Regulations don't cause economic loss, ladies and gentlemen. Instead, 
they have produced billions of dollars in economic gains. In fact, a 
2013 study from the San Francisco Federal Reserve found that since the 
recession, there is zero correlation between job growth and 
regulations. Moreover, the San Francisco Federal Reserve also found 
that there is no evidence showing that increased regulations and taxes 
have any effect on the unemployment rate. If anything, weak growth was 
due to weak consumer demand, not cost of regulations. Earlier studies 
by the New York Federal Reserve made similar findings.
  So what is the evidence that regulations harm the economy? The only 
evidence--literally, the one study supporting the faulty premise that 
regulations harm the economy--relied on for the absurd figures repeated 
by the proponents of this bill derives from a study roundly unproven by 
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which found that the 
study's cost figures were cherry-picked, inaccurate, and based on 
evidence from decades ago without contemporary value.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Indeed, the very authors of this study have 
since repudiated its use in policy debates, and any of their claims 
should be discredited as ideologically driven.
  Under President Obama, the economy has roared back to life. 
Unemployment is falling at the fastest rate in three decades. Consumer 
and business spending have catalyzed the most growth in over a decade. 
Our Nation's gross domestic product grew at 5 percent between July and 
September last year--the fastest since 2003--and that will continue to 
grow throughout this year.
  Granted, the bottom 99 percent of Americans have not felt the 
economic uptick that the top 1 percent have enjoyed, but that fact is 
not due to the cost of regulation but, rather, stagnant wage growth.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that our economy is growing at its fastest 
rate. I would ask that my amendment, which has been ruled to be in 
order, will rule the day. I ask for your support.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law of the 
House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 185, the 
proposed Regulatory Accountability Act. Simply put, this legislation 
requires Federal regulatory agencies to choose the lowest cost 
rulemaking alternative that meets the statutory objectives.
  In the 113th Congress, members of the Judiciary Committee and the 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law heard 
over and over again how these regulatory costs have been key factors 
that hold back our economic recovery and stand in the way of job 
creation. Our regulatory reform agenda for the 114th Congress begins 
today with the passage of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It is a 
good place to start. After all, it has been almost 70 years since 
enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act. Unfortunately, the act 
has never been modernized nor even amended in any material way.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and 
Antitrust Law, it is my honor to support Chairman Goodlatte, and I urge 
Members to support H.R. 185, a bill that passed with strong bipartisan 
support in both the 112th and 113th Congress, so the bill can finally 
be given serious consideration in the new House, the U.S. Senate, and 
reach the President's desk.
  If the President is serious about job creating, helping small 
businesses, and growing our economy, he will work with us and sign the 
Regulatory Accountability Act and other important regulatory reform 
measures into law.
  Mr. Chairman, it is about time that we deliver real and permanent 
regulatory solutions to create jobs. Doing that starts with passage of 
the Regulatory Accountability Act.
  I want to leave the American people with one thought. It is an 
example how the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is doing what 
this bill tries to prevent.
  I live in the middle of five farms. I have been there for almost two 
decades. Just recently, the EPA has attempted to get more control over 
farmland by saying that if there is a rainstorm and there is a puddle, 
or a farmer even spills milk, through the Navigable Waters Act, EPA has 
control over that land. As I said, I have been living in the middle of 
five farms for a couple of decades, and I have yet to see as much as a 
rowboat go through those farmlands.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), one of our most effective members of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman, the distinguished ranking 
member, for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would almost attempt to bring back ``Swanee River,'' 
or some old song that reflects ``here we go again.''
  This is a bill that has been recycled. It has been recycled and it 
has been recycled. I believe the underlying premise of the bill is 
contrary to the values of the American people. This is proposed as a 
Regulatory Accountability Act to generate jobs and opportunity. I rise 
in opposition to a bill that stymies progress, hinders clean water and 
clean air, and provides mountainous obstacles to the national security 
of America.
  What is the underlying premise of H.R. 185? The underlying premise of 
this bill is to require 70 new analytical requirements to the 
Administrative Procedure Act, and it requires Federal agencies to 
conduct an estimate of all indirect costs and benefits of proposed 
rules and all potential alternatives without providing any definition 
of what constitutes or does not constitute an indirect cost.
  Mr. Chairman, is there logic to saying that you are streamlining the 
APA process when you are adding a mountainous, tall, multifloor 
skyscraper of requirements? Is it accurate to suggest that you are 
making the process better when you are causing agencies of varying 
sizes already suffering from the restraints of the budget-cutting 
process of my friends on the other side of the aisle, are you 
suggesting that they can then analyze indirect costs and actually save 
money?
  We live in a climate and an era of difficult times. As a member of 
the Homeland Security Subcommittee, as our Secretary of Homeland 
Security has said, these are dangerous times. We have already indicated 
our sympathy for the people of France and viewed it as a wake-up call. 
Do you realize that some of the agencies facing this crisis will be 
Homeland Security, Health and Human Services? Does anyone recall the 
tragedy of Ebola and how quickly action was needed?
  This undermines the integrity of the process by increasing the 
procedural burdens for Federal agencies when they try to carry out 
their mandates. In fact, this is not helpful when we entrust our agency 
personnel to help protect the American people against threats near and 
far.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the question: What are we saving here?

[[Page H252]]

What money are we saving? Why are we undermining the very protection of 
this Nation?
  Again, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, 
and, again, homeland security, all of these very important elements of 
safety for the American people will be undermined by H.R. 185. Today, 
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to stand on the side of the American 
people and vigorously oppose H.R. 185.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, the Regulatory 
Accountability Act of 2015.
  This bill modifies the federal rule-making process by codifying many 
requirements included in presidential executive orders and requiring 
agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, 
including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem 
that the rule is meant to address, and potential costs and benefits of 
the proposal and alternatives.
  In essence though--this H.R. 185 only adds to the procedural burdens 
of federal agencies--making it harder for them to effectively carry out 
their missions.

                   The Regulatory Accountability Act:

  Creates confusion and delay by adding over 70 new analytical 
requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act and requires federal 
agencies to conduct an estimate of all the ``indirect'' costs and 
benefits of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without 
providing any definition of what constitutes or does not constitute an 
indirect cost.
  Mr. Chair, the tragedy last week in France was a wake-up call--and we 
simply cannot delay, obfuscate, and slow down the regulatory process.
  Slows down the rulemaking process by significantly increasing the 
demands on already constrained agency resources to produce the analysis 
and findings that would be required to finalize any new rule.
  Undermines the integrity of the process by increasing the procedural 
burdens for federal agencies when they try to carry out their mandates. 
Mr. Chair, this is not helpful legislation when we entrust our agency 
personnel to help protect the American people against threats near and 
far such as franchise terrorism, keep our water clean, and our food 
safe.
  Allows any interested person has the ability to petition the agency 
to hold a public hearing on any ``genuinely disputed'' scientific or 
factual conclusions underlying the proposed rule.


              hinders the production of guidance documents

  ``Super-mandates'' cost-benefit analysis measures for major guidance 
documents. In addition it makes it much harder for agencies to issue 
guidance, thus leading to increased regulatory uncertainty.
  Provides regulated industries and companies multiple opportunities to 
challenge agency data and science and thus further stretch out the 
already lengthy rulemaking process--again--undermining the process.


             makes the least costly rule the default choice

  Requires that an agency default to the ``least costly'' rule unless 
it can demonstrate--out of all the possible alternative rules--that 
additional benefits justify any additional costs and offer a public 
health, safety, environmental, or welfare justification clearly drawn 
from the authorizing statute including such critical measures as the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.


              expands judicial review of agency judgments

  This bill discourages agencies from rulemaking and from being able to 
do their jobs because judges are emboldened to substitute their own 
opinions for the findings of agencies.
  Expands the scope of judicial review.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act is designed to further obstruct and 
hinder rulemaking rather than improve the regulatory process.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to VOTE AGAINST the Regulatory 
Accountability Act and ensure that progress is not thwarted and 
government operations not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), a new member of the House 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. TROTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Today, this House will vote on important bipartisan legislation 
designed to rein in costly Federal regulations. The Regulatory 
Accountability Act will modernize the Federal rulemaking process by 
directing the executive branch to fulfill its statutory goals in the 
least costly method and requires agencies to solicit input from, of all 
places, the public to find the most efficient regulatory solutions.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act is necessary because ineffective, 
inefficient regulations from Washington have increased prices, lowered 
wages, killed jobs, and made our Nation less competitive. There is no 
question that these regulations are hurting hardworking families in 
Michigan's 11th District and throughout our great Nation.
  The facts on Washington's overregulation are shocking. Federal 
regulations now impose an estimated burden of $1.86 trillion. That 
burden is suffocating America's job creators. It equals roughly $15,000 
per household and 11 percent of our gross domestic product. To make 
matters worse, the new regulations cooked up in Washington are often 
unnecessary and have unintended consequences.
  I spent 30 years in business and have seen firsthand the devastating 
impact overregulation from Washington can have on our economy. We 
cannot expect our job providers to grow and hire more employees if 
Washington is creating uncertainty, surprises, and continuing to bury 
our businesses in costly regulations.
  Every dollar that is spent complying with needless regulations is one 
less dollar that can be spent by families who are trying to put food on 
the table and make ends meet in a challenging economy.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people sent us here to work together to 
address the many challenges facing our Nation. They sent us here to 
craft solutions to create jobs and make opportunities for all 
Americans.

                              {time}  1515

  So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Regulatory 
Accountability Act so we can begin to lift the burden of Federal 
regulations off the American people. It is time to get the government 
out of the way.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a man who has served 
the House Judiciary Committee with great distinction.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise against the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about job growth. We just want to 
remind people that our economy has experienced job growth in excess of 
200,000 for 11 consecutive months, a record that hadn't been seen since 
the Clinton administration, and 58 consecutive months of private sector 
job growth, a string that hasn't been seen in recorded history.
  So, continued economic growth and strong regulatory protections are 
not mutually exclusive. In fact, regulations are often necessary to 
protect the investments the American taxpayer makes in our economy and 
to ensure stability, order, and safety inside and outside of the 
workplace.
  Unfortunately, this legislation will impose unnecessary burdens and 
delays on agencies seeking to issue or improve rules and regulations, 
burdensome delays that can threaten taxpayer dollars and the lives and 
health of workers.
  Mr. Chairman, I offered two amendments that would have improved the 
bill, but neither was accepted by the Rules Committee. The first would 
have insured that inspector general recommendations would not be 
subject to the potentially dangerous delays and extra hurdles found in 
the bill.
  Inspectors general are taxpayers' independent watchdogs who 
investigate and seek out problems and inefficiencies in our government. 
For example, two alarming audits issued last year by the Department of 
Education's inspector general found that criminal fraud rings were 
preying on money available through distance learning programs and that 
expensive, bank-sponsored debit cards were used to perpetuate waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the financial aid program.
  Fortunately, in both of these situations the inspector general urged 
the Department of Education to quickly issue new rules to ensure that 
billions of dollars aren't wasted.
  Unfortunately, without my amendment, this bill would deeply impair 
the ability of the Department of Education and other agencies to 
address similar known abuses of taxpayers' funds.
  Delays in inspector general recommendations can also threaten the

[[Page H253]]

lives and health of workers. For example, the Department of Labor's 
inspector general found that the Mine Safety and Health Administration 
had a regulatory gap that allowed mine operators who habitually 
violated mine safety standards to easily avoid sanctions and continue 
to operate unsafe mines.
  The unfortunate consequence of these loopholes was seen at the Upper 
Big Branch mine in West Virginia, where 29 mine workers were killed in 
the largest coal mine disaster in the United States in 40 years.
  Following that disaster, the inspector general recommended fixes that 
would close these loopholes, and the administration quickly adopted new 
regulations that are estimated to prevent about 1,800 miner injuries 
every 10 years. Had this bill been in effect, these regulations might 
not have ever been adopted in a timely manner.
  My second amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have also strengthened 
protections of workers' health and safety. The amendment would have 
exempted regulations or guidance proposed by the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration to prevent health care workers from 
contracting infectious diseases.
  As it stands, the legislation could possibly delay OSHA's workforce 
protections and make it far more difficult for OSHA to prevent health 
care workers from contracting lethal infectious diseases.
  Under current regulations that govern OSHA's rulemaking, it takes 
OSHA an average of 7 years to issue standards, and this bill could add 
another 3 years, possibly delaying and essentially shutting down OSHA's 
ability to issue rules altogether.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will seriously compromise the ability 
of agencies to protect both taxpayers and workers, so I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 
3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Regulatory Accountability Act. It is funny to me to stay here and 
listen to claims that the sky is going to fall if we just bring some 
common sense into how our Federal agencies promulgate rules. I want to 
ask, really?
  Let me show you something. What I have in my hand is the Federal 
Register. It is not the Federal Register for the year or for a number 
of months. This is the Federal Register and the rules that have been 
promulgated just for this first week of January, just a week.
  See, this first one here is for January 2. It is a little slim, but 
you know, they had just gotten back in the office.
  This second one right here, this is for January 6, so I think they 
are making up for it.
  This is just for the rest of the week. And believe it or not, that is 
actually a small stack compared to what happens when the juices really 
get flowing.
  Now, here is the challenge with this stack. My challenge is, say I 
have a small business--and I do, actually. There are several small 
businesses in Lewis County, for example. It is a small area compared to 
the State of Washington, and they have got a lot of rural folks who 
work very hard, whether it is farms or family-owned businesses that 
they have been passing down.
  Now, that small business in Centralia, they are responsible to know 
what is in this and the ones that come every single day after it for 
the entire year.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about big corporations with legal 
departments and government affairs folks who are hired to comb through 
this. We are talking about mom-and-pop shops. We are talking about 50 
people or less. They have to dedicate a whole employee to knowing what 
is in here or they could be in violation of a Federal rule.
  I have heard it said that you are 400 times more likely to come into 
contravention or violation of a Federal rule than a Federal law. So 
actually, it doesn't just apply to small businesses. It applies to all 
of us. We better know what is in here.
  Or, time out: we could just create a little bit of space for some 
common sense, and that is exactly what this bill does.
  This bill says, hey, Federal agencies, you just have to take a few 
extra things into account, like the impacts on the economy, like the 
impacts on the cost for taxpayers. Do you know we are talking about 
$1.86 trillion on the U.S. economy every year?
  That is about $15,000 per every American household. That is real 
money. Fifteen, grand is a lot of money. That could provide a family of 
four in Castle Rock with groceries for 62 weeks.

  Mr. Chairman, we are not trying to bring down this Federal 
bureaucracy, although some would appreciate it if we did. We are simply 
trying to bring some common sense into how they operate.
  Look, the Regulatory Accountability Act delivers the reform that will 
make lives better for hardworking Americans and, hopefully, it will 
help them begin to recover a little bit of that $15,000 they are 
spending on unnecessary regulations. We can do this, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield an additional minute 
to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I thank the gentleman.
  I believe this is what people need to understand. The bill is very 
simple. It leaves intact and supports consumer protections and 
reasonable environmental impacts. It doesn't jeopardize the health of 
our kids.
  Come on. Let's use some common sense. It simply makes it easier for 
that family of four. It really does try and connect the Federal 
regulations with real lives of real Americans, and that is why this act 
is so important.
  That is why it is bipartisan, Mr. Speaker. This isn't some extreme 
idea. This is something that brings good government to the people. We 
are trying to serve the people, not be their masters, and I think this 
bill does just that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the ranking member for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, the Regulatory 
Accountability Act of 2015, a bill that puts us all in danger by making 
it harder for Federal regulators to do their job.
  This bill would delay regulations that prevent big banks from 
gambling with our economy. Just as seriously, it would weaken the 
implementation of laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean 
Air Act, and the Clean Water Act that protect our environment, natural 
resources, and the public health of the American people.
  Supporters of this bill tell us that regulations impose huge costs 
and prevent economic growth. As other speakers have noted, these claims 
are not just untrue, they are fabrications.
  Choosing not to regulate polluting industries doesn't save taxpayers 
money. When we fail to prevent pollution, we impose more costs on the 
public. Allowing unchecked emissions from coal-fired power plants, for 
example, would mean more mercury and smog polluting our air and water, 
causing respiratory ailments and premature death.
  To see what happens when a government chooses to allow polluters to 
have their way, one need only to look at China. By burning coal without 
adequate air quality regulations, China caused an additional 670,000 
deaths in 2012 alone, this according to a recent study by the National 
Resources Defense Council.
  The failure to regulate is causing a massive drag at this time on the 
Chinese economy. This bill leads us down the same path. The Chinese 
model of economic growth at the expense of public health and the 
environment is not sustainable and does not represent American values.
  We have laws on the books today mandating environmental conservation 
and natural resource management through regulation. This bill does not 
repeal those laws, which have been a major benefit to the Nation, to 
the American people since they were enacted. Today's bill just makes 
their implementation less efficient, more costly, more time-consuming 
to the very industries it is allegedly trying to help.
  If this bill were to become law, annual regulations needed to open a 
fishery or establish fishing industry catch levels would be endlessly 
delayed.

[[Page H254]]

  If this bill were to pass, it would delay the Forest Service 
regulations needed to allow thinning projects and increase the 
potential for costly and deadly wildfires throughout the West. Each 
year, new fire seasons seem to break the record for financial costs and 
acres burned. This bill, if enacted, would make that cycle worse.
  The bill fails to appropriate any new money to the agencies facing 
these unnecessary, burdensome requirements. Instead, agencies like NOAA 
and the Department of the Interior will be forced to divert existing 
resources to develop and implement the regulations needed to fulfill 
this new congressional mandate.
  The results? For example, permits for energy development on Federal 
lands, currently at an all-time high, will be delayed, as will be 
permits for other activities.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. Grijalva another minute.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. This is not about making government more efficient. It 
is about making it impossible for many government agencies to do their 
jobs on behalf of the American people. In the name of regulatory 
reform, Republicans are intentionally cutting off the people who 
oversee our lands and waters at their knees.
  Those who claim that this bill is a good idea ignore China's example 
at their own peril. Federal agencies trying to keep us safe cannot do 
more with less. Instead of placing more burdens on Federal agencies, we 
should provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs 
better and faster and protect the American people.
  For all these reasons, I urge opposition to H.R. 185.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration released 300 new 
rules and regulations in the first 7 days of 2015. This is on top of 
over 3,500 new rules and regulations the administration created last 
year.
  We have got a problem in our country. Unelected regulators in 
Washington, D.C., are out of control. From your mortgage to your health 
care plan to your child's lunchroom, and even your own backyard, the 
regulatory arms of this Capital are encroaching every facet of American 
life.

                              {time}  1530

  Agencies are churning out hundreds of thousands of pages of 
regulations, many of which have a substantial effect on particular 
communities and industries across western Pennsylvania. Washington's 
central planners are regulating solid, good-paying jobs right out of 
existence.
  The legislation under consideration includes a provision I offered in 
the last Congress with my friend Mr. Barr of Kentucky. Our provision 
simply says that if a regulation decreases employment or wages by 1 
percent or more in an industry, it will be subjected to heightened 
review and transparency requirements.
  The principle is simple: if bureaucrats implement rules that harm 
Americans' wages or jobs, they must take responsibility for it.
  I am proud to support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting H.R. 185 and in holding Federal agencies accountable.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 5 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Virginia has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I notice that my friends on the other side have not named one person, 
academic scholar, or organization that supports this measure. I would 
now like to identify the letters that we have received on our side that 
have been very critical--very disturbed--by the gross approach of the 
authors of this measure.
  Supporting us and opposing the bill is the American Federation of 
State, County, and Municipal Employees. The AFL-CIO is opposed to this 
measure. The American Bar Association is opposed. The Americans for 
Financial Reform is opposed.
  The Center for Effective Government is opposed. The Center for 
Progressive Reform is opposed. The Center for Responsible Lending is 
opposed. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, representing more than 
70 national consumer, public interest, labor, and environmental 
organizations and more than 80 State and local organizations and 
affiliates is opposed.
  The Consumer Federation of America is opposed. The Consumers Union is 
opposed to this measure. The Natural Resources Defense Council does not 
support this measure. Public Citizen is opposed to this. United 
Steelworkers is opposed. The Union of Concerned Scientists is opposed. 
The United States PIRG, which is the Public Interest Research Group, is 
opposed.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I think that our case against this measure has 
been well-made.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased that my colleague from Michigan has raised the issue of 
support for this legislation because there is a lot of it. I have in 
front of me a list of 156 organizations that support this legislation. 
They cover a wide array of organizations, of groups, of businesses, of 
small business associations, and of chambers of commerce.
  I will name just a few: the 60 Plus Association, the Indoor 
Environment & Energy Efficiency Association, the Aggregate and Ready 
Mix Association of Minnesota, the American Architectural Manufacturers 
Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Coatings 
Association, the American Composites Manufacturers Association, the 
American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, the American Council of 
Engineering Companies, the American Council of Independent 
Laboratories, the American Exploration & Mining Association, the 
American Forest & Paper Association, the American Foundry Society, the 
American Fruit and Vegetable Processors and Growers Coalition, the 
American Highway Users Alliance, the American Iron and Steel Institute, 
the American Loggers Council, the American Road & Transportation 
Builders Association, the American Subcontractors Association, the 
American Supply Association, the American Trucking Associations, the 
American Wholesale Marketers Association, the American Wood Council.
  We haven't even gotten all the way through the A's on this list which 
covers, as I say, a wide array of organizations that is interested in 
manufacturing good-quality products for Americans and in providing 
services, like architectural services and others. I want to make sure 
that everyone understands that there is broad-based support for this.
  I also want to correct a misimpression left by some of the speakers 
on the other side who have pointed to a study that we have not relied 
upon for the basis of this legislation. I want to call to everyone's 
attention--in fact, at the appropriate time, I will request that it may 
be made a part of the Record--a study from the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute, CEI, entitled--not the 10 Commandments, which we are all 
familiar with--but ``Ten Thousand Commandments, An Annual Snapshot of 
the Federal Regulatory State,'' by Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., which has 
provided valuable information with regard to this.
  Another thing people have said is, Oh, this is going to add a 
tremendous burden to the regulators when they write these regulations.
  I can tell you we don't have 160 different organizations supporting 
this legislation because they think their regulatory burden is too low; 
they think the burden is too high and that not enough energy and effort 
is going in on the part of those regulators to pay attention to what 
they are doing when they write regulations.
  They have complained about the new things that this bill requires, 
and let me just read a few of them to you.

       It requires documentation that the agency has considered 
     the specific nature and significance of the problem the 
     agency may address with a rule . . .

  It seems to make pretty good common sense that, if you are going to 
write a regulation, you should be studying and understanding the nature 
of the problem you are supposed to be addressing with the regulation.

       . . . documentation that the agency has considered whether 
     existing rules could be

[[Page H255]]

     amended or rescinded to address the problem in whole or in 
     part; documentation that the agency has considered reasonable 
     alternatives for a new rule or other response identified by 
     the agency or interested persons; documentation that the 
     agency has considered the alternative of no Federal re-
     sponse . . .

  In other words, they may not need to do anything.

       . . . documentation that the agency has considered the 
     potential direct costs and benefits associated with potential 
     alternative rules and other responses; documentation that the 
     agency has estimated impacts on jobs that are associated with 
     potential alternative rules and other responses.

  The requirements are like that throughout, and they are commonsense 
reforms. In fact, they are so common sense that many of these were 
initiated by President Reagan, and many of these have been carried 
forward by subsequent administrations, including the current 
administration.
  What we are asking for today is don't hide the ball on the American 
people when you write regulations. Provide the documentation of how you 
wrote the regulation, what you considered when you wrote the 
regulation, whether or not that regulation is the most cost-effective 
way to do it, and whether or not the regulation is even needed at all. 
These are commonsense reforms, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, last evening, the President of the 
United States indicated that he will not sign this bill, that he will 
veto it if it were to pass, and I am hoping that that doesn't happen.
  The measure fails in a great way. It would create needless regulatory 
and legal uncertainty and would further impede the implementation 
protections for the American public.
  This bill would make the regulatory process more expensive, less 
flexible, and more burdensome, dramatically increasing the costs of 
regulation of the American taxpayer and working class families.
  This is an incredible situation that we have to debate here. I am 
hopeful that the logic, the rationale, the threat of the executive 
branch to veto the bill will all cause us to carefully consider how 
unnecessary this measure is. I urge that we not support H.R. 185.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), the vice chairman of the 
Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Chairman Goodlatte.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Regulatory 
Accountability Act of 2015.
  There is no question that the Federal Government and Federal 
regulations take a heavy toll on businesses of all sizes. That toll 
isn't just financial; it is also stress, it is also time, it is also 
emotional. Dealing with the government is difficult. Just the dollars-
and-cents cost of Federal regulation has been estimated at $1.86 
trillion--or so the expert tells me. That adds up to roughly $15,000 
per household.
  It is simply not right for unelected bureaucrats to put that much 
weight on the shoulders of the American people without making all 
efforts to minimize the costs and give the people of south Texas and 
everywhere in this country the opportunity and a chance to weigh in.
  In Texas in particular, we have seen how onerous EPA and Department 
of the Interior and other regulations have slowed job growth and the 
American energy boom, costing our domestic energy companies millions of 
dollars.
  This bill would put public discussion back on the table when it comes 
to regulations and would ensure that the economic costs are fully 
considered and minimized. We have a lot of work to do to peel back some 
of the needless, overburdensome regulations that are strangling our 
businesses, but this bill will help us plug the hole in the boat while 
we get rid of--start pumping out--some of the water.
  The other side likes to say that it is going to make it more 
difficult to regulate. It is supposed to be difficult to enact laws and 
regulations. We have to pass something out of the House, and we have 
got to pass something out of the Senate and get it signed by the 
President to enact a law; but a bureaucrat can do it, basically, with 
the stroke of a pen and a publication in the Federal Register.
  This act is going to do something to curb that. We need less 
government, fewer laws, fewer regulations--and not more.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, right now, we have the worst of both worlds: more 
regulation and less scrutiny.
  In looking at a recent 7-year period, the Government Accountability 
Office found that 35 percent of major rules were issued without the 
opportunity for public comment. The GAO also found a lack of 
responsiveness. In the case of one ObamaCare regulation--one--4,627 
comments were received, but no responses were issued.
  Regulatory costs disproportionately hit small manufacturers, which 
incur regulatory costs of $34,671 per year, per employee--more than 
three times that of the average American economy. Our energy boom is a 
perfect example of failed regulatory policy.
  Oil and natural gas resources do not know Federal versus State 
boundaries, but it takes 10 times as long for the Federal Government to 
issue a permit as it does the States. As a result, oil and gas 
production is going up sharply on State lands and down on Federal 
lands.
  Finally, ObamaCare is an epicenter of red tape. In its first 4 years, 
ObamaCare's effects on small business amounted to $1.9 billion in 
regulatory costs and in 11.3 million hours of compliance. This amounts 
to a regulatory tax of 3 to 5 percent. Again, this is the cost of just 
one law's regulations.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time 
and urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which 
will help to rein in the excessive power of the executive branch of the 
Federal Government and provide for common sense being brought to the 
writing of Federal Government regulations, saving American taxpayers 
and consumers billions if not trillions of dollars. It is badly needed. 
It is long overdue.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory 
                           State 2014 Edition


           Competitive Enterprise Institute Executive Summary

                       (By Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.)

       In February 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     reported outlays for fiscal year (FY) 2013 of $3.454 trillion 
     and projected spending for FY 2014 at $3.543 trillion. 
     Meanwhile, President Barack Obama's federal budget proposal 
     for FY 2015 seeks $3.901 trillion in discretionary, 
     entitlement, and interest spending. In the previous fiscal 
     year, the president had proposed outlays of $3.778 trillion. 
     Despite high debt and deficits, we have been unable to avoid 
     entering the era of $4 trillion in annual spending.
       We experienced trillion dollar deficits between 2009 and 
     2012, and CBO projects that deficits will exceed $1 trillion 
     again by FY 2022. Trillion dollar deficits were once 
     unimaginable. Such sums signified the level of budgets 
     themselves, not of shortfalls. Yet at no point is spending 
     projected to balance in the coming decade. President Obama's 
     2015 budget projects deficits that are smaller than recent 
     heights--with 2014's claimed $649 billion to fall to $413 
     billion in 2018--before heading back into the CBO-predicted 
     stratosphere.
       Many other countries' government outlays make up a greater 
     share of their national output, compared with 20 percent for 
     the U.S. government, but in absolute terms, the U.S. 
     government is the largest government on the planet. Only four 
     other nations top $1 trillion in annual government revenues, 
     and none but the United States collects more than $2 
     trillion.


                       Regulation: The Hidden Tax

       The scope of federal government spending and deficits is 
     sobering. Yet the government's reach extends well beyond 
     Washington's taxes, deficits, and borrowing. Federal 
     environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations 
     cost hundreds of billions--perhaps trillions--of dollars 
     annually in addition to the official federal outlays that 
     dominate policy debate.
       Firms generally pass the costs of some taxes along to 
     consumers. Likewise, some regulatory compliance costs that 
     businesses face will find their way into the prices that 
     consumers pay and out of the wages workers

[[Page H256]]

     earn. Precise regulatory costs can never be fully known 
     because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often 
     indirect. But scattered government and private data exist 
     about scores of regulations and about the agencies that issue 
     them, as well as data about estimates of regulatory costs and 
     benefits. Compiling some of that information can make the 
     regulatory state somewhat more comprehensible. That 
     compilation is one purpose of the annual Ten Thousand 
     Commandments report, highlights of which follow:
       Among the five all-time-high Federal Register page counts, 
     four have occurred under President Obama.
       The annual outflow of more than 3,500 final rules--
     sometimes far above that level--means that 87,282 rules have 
     been issued since 1993.
       There were 51 rules for every law in 2013. The 
     ``Unconstitutionality Index,'' the ratio of regulations 
     issued by agencies to laws passed by Congress and signed by 
     the president, stood at 51 for 2013. Specifically, 72 laws 
     were passed in calendar year 2013, whereas 3,659 rules were 
     issued. This disparity highlights the excessive delegation of 
     lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.
       This author's working paper, ``Tip of the Costberg,'' which 
     is largely based on federal government data, estimates 
     regulatory compliance and economic impacts at $1.863 trillion 
     nnually.
       U.S. households ``pay'' $14,974 annually in regulatory 
     hidden tax, thereby ``absorbing'' 23 percent of the average 
     income of $65,596, and ``pay'' 29 percent of the expenditure 
     budget of $51,442. The ``tax'' exceeds every item in the 
     budget except housing. More is ``spent'' on embedded 
     regulation than on health care, food, transportation, 
     entertainment, apparel and services, and savings.
       The estimated cost of regulation exceeds half the level of 
     the federal budget itself. Regulatory costs of $1.863 
     trillion amount to 11.1 percent of the U.S. gross domestic 
     product (GDP), which was estimated at $16.797 trillion in 
     2013 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
       When regulatory costs are combined with federal FY 2013 
     outlays of $3.454 trillion, the federal government's share of 
     the entire economy now reaches 31 percent. The regulatory 
     ``hidden tax'' surpasses the income tax. Regulatory 
     compliance costs exceed the 2013 estimated total individual 
     income tax revenues of $1.234 trillion.
       Regulatory compliance costs vastly exceed the 2013 
     estimated corporate income tax revenues of $288 billion and 
     approach corporate pretax profits of $2.19 trillion.
       If it were a country, U.S. regulation would be the 10th 
     largest economy, ranked between India and Italy.
       U.S. regulatory costs exceed the GDPs of Australia and 
     Canada, the highest-income nations among the countries ranked 
     most free in the annual Index of Economic Freedom and 
     Economic Freedom of the World reports.
       The Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. 
     Louis, Missouri, and the Regulatory Studies Center at George 
     Washington University in Washington, D.C., jointly estimate 
     that agencies spent $57.3 billion (on budget) to administer 
     and police the federal regulatory enterprise. Adding the 
     $1.863 trillion in off-budget compliance costs brings the 
     total regulatory enterprise to $1.92 trillion.
       The Federal Register finished 2013 at 79,311 pages, the 
     fourth highest level in history.
       Federal Register pages devoted specifically to final rules 
     rose to a record high of 26,417.
       The 2013 Federal Register contained 3,659 final rules and 
     2,594 proposed rules.
       Since the nation's founding, more than 15,177 executive 
     orders have been issued. President Obama issued 181 as of the 
     end of 2013.
       President George W Bush averaged 63 major rules annually 
     during his eight years in office; Obama's five years so far 
     have averaged 81.
       Although there are over 3,500 rules annually, public 
     notices in the Federal Register exceed 24,000 annually, with 
     uncounted ``guidance documents'' among them. There were 
     24,261 notices in 2013 and 477,929 since 1995.
       According to the fall 2013 ``Regulatory Plan and the 
     Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory 
     Actions'' (which lists federal regulatory actions at various 
     stages of implementation), 63 federal departments, agencies, 
     and commissions have 3,305 regulations at various stages of 
     implementation.
       Of the 3,305 regulations in the pipeline, 191 are 
     ``economically significant'' rules, which the federal 
     government defines as imposing at least $100 million in 
     annual costs. Assuming that those rulemakings are primarily 
     regulatory implies roughly $19 billion yearly in future off-
     budget regulatory effects.
       Of the 3,305 regulations now in the works, 669 affect small 
     businesses. Of those, 391 required a regulatory flexibility 
     analysis: 278 were otherwise noted by agencies to affect 
     small businesses.
       The five most active rule-producing agencies--the 
     Departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, 
     Transportation, and Health and Human Services--account for 
     1,451 rules, or 44 percent of all rules in the Unified Agenda 
     pipeline.
       The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was 
     formerly consistently in the top five, is now sixth, but 
     adding its 179 rules brings the total from the top six 
     rulemaking agencies to 1,630 rules, or 49.3 percent of all 
     federal rules.
       The most recent Small Business Administration (SBA) 
     evaluation of the overall U.S. federal regulatory enterprise 
     estimated annual regulatory compliance costs of $1.752 
     trillion in 2008. Earlier SBA reports pegged costs at $1.1 
     trillion in 2005 and at $843 billion in 2001. The Office of 
     Management and Budget (OMB) agreed with those figures at the 
     time. Meanwhile, a subset of 115 selected major rules 
     reviewed during 2002-2012 by the OMB notes cumulative annual 
     costs of between $57 billion and $84 billion.
       The short-lived series of budget surpluses from 1998 to 
     2001--the first since 1969--seems like ancient history in 
     today's debt and deficit-drenched policy setting, as the CBO 
     projects annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars 
     over the coming decade. When it comes to stimulating a 
     limping economy, reducing deficits and relieving regulatory 
     burdens are key to the nation's economic health. Otherwise, 
     budgetary pressures can incentivize lawmakers to impose off-
     budget regulations on the private sector, rather than add to 
     unpopular deficit spending. A new government program--for 
     example, job training--would require either increasing 
     government spending or imposing new regulations requiring 
     such training. Unlike on-budget spending, the latter 
     regulatory costs remain largely hidden from public view, 
     which makes regulation increasingly attractive to lawmakers.


             The Disclosure and Accountability Imperatives

       Cost-benefit analysis at the agency level is already 
     neglected; thus, at minimum, some third-party review is 
     needed. Like federal spending, regulations and their costs 
     should be tracked and disclosed annually. Then, periodic 
     housecleaning should be performed.
       A problem with cost-benefit analysis is that it largely 
     relies on agency self-policing. Having agencies audit their 
     own rules is like asking students to grade their own exams. 
     Regulators are disinclined to emphasize when a rule's 
     benefits do not justify the costs involved. In fact, one 
     could expect new and dubious categories of benefits to emerge 
     to justify an agency's rulemaking activity.
       A major source of overregulation is the systematic 
     overdelegation of rulemaking power to agencies. Requiring 
     expedited votes on economically significant or controversial 
     agency rules before they become binding would reestablish 
     congressional accountability and would help affirm a 
     principle of ``no regulation without representation.''
       Openness about regulatory facts and figures can be 
     bolstered through federal ``regulatory report cards,'' 
     similar to the presentation in Ten Thousand Commandments. 
     These could be officially issued each year to distill 
     information for the public and policy makers about the scope 
     of the regulatory state.

  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 185

       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 ``Regulatory Accountability 
     Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 551 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) `major rule' means any rule that the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
     determines is likely to impose--
       ``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more, adjusted annually for inflation;
       ``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, local, or tribal 
     government agencies, or geographic regions;
       ``(C) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
       ``(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the 
     economy;
       ``(16) `high-impact rule' means any rule that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs determines is likely to impose an annual cost on the 
     economy of $1,000,000,000 or more, adjusted annually for 
     inflation;
       ``(17) `negative-impact on jobs and wages rule' means any 
     rule that the agency that made the rule or the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
     determines is likely to--
       ``(A) in one or more sectors of the economy that has a 6-
     digit code under the North American Industry Classification 
     System, reduce employment not related to new regulatory 
     compliance by 1 percent or more annually during the 1-year, 
     5-year, or 10-year period after implementation;
       ``(B) in one or more sectors of the economy that has a 6-
     digit code under the North American Industry Classification 
     System,

[[Page H257]]

     reduce average weekly wages for employment not related to new 
     regulatory compliance by 1 percent or more annually during 
     the 1-year, 5-year, or 10-year period after implementation;
       ``(C) in any industry area (as such term is defined in the 
     Current Population Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics) in which the most recent annual unemployment rate 
     for the industry area is greater than 5 percent, as 
     determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Current 
     Population Survey, reduce employment not related to new 
     regulatory compliance during the first year after 
     implementation; or
       ``(D) in any industry area in which the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics projects in the Occupational Employment Statistics 
     program that the employment level will decrease by 1 percent 
     or more, further reduce employment not related to new 
     regulatory compliance during the first year after 
     implementation;
       ``(18) `guidance' means an agency statement of general 
     applicability and future effect, other than a regulatory 
     action, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory 
     or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or 
     regulatory issue;
       ``(19) `major guidance' means guidance that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs finds is likely to lead to--
       ``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more, adjusted annually for inflation;
       ``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, local or tribal 
     government agencies, or geographic regions;
       ``(C) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
       ``(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the 
     economy;
       ``(20) the `Information Quality Act' means section 515 of 
     Public Law 106-554, the Treasury and General Government 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and guidelines 
     issued by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs or other agencies pursuant to the Act; and
       ``(21) the `Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' 
     means the office established under section 3503 of chapter 35 
     of title 44 and any successor to that office.''.

     SEC. 3. RULE MAKING.

       (a) Section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``(a) This section applies'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Applicability.--This section applies''.
       (b) Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking subsections (b) through (e) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Rule Making Considerations.--In a rule making, an 
     agency shall make all preliminary and final factual 
     determinations based on evidence and consider, in addition to 
     other applicable considerations, the following:
       ``(1) The legal authority under which a rule may be 
     proposed, including whether a rule making is required by 
     statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether 
     the agency has discretion to commence a rule making.
       ``(2) Other statutory considerations applicable to whether 
     the agency can or should propose a rule or undertake other 
     agency action.
       ``(3) The specific nature and significance of the problem 
     the agency may address with a rule (including the degree and 
     nature of risks the problem poses and the priority of 
     addressing those risks compared to other matters or 
     activities within the agency's jurisdiction), whether the 
     problem warrants new agency action, and the countervailing 
     risks that may be posed by alternatives for new agency 
     action.
       ``(4) Whether existing rules have created or contributed to 
     the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether 
     those rules could be amended or rescinded to address the 
     problem in whole or part.
       ``(5) Any reasonable alternatives for a new rule or other 
     response identified by the agency or interested persons, 
     including not only responses that mandate particular conduct 
     or manners of compliance, but also--
       ``(A) the alternative of no Federal response;
       ``(B) amending or rescinding existing rules;
       ``(C) potential regional, State, local, or tribal 
     regulatory action or other responses that could be taken in 
     lieu of agency action; and
       ``(D) potential responses that--
       ``(i) specify performance objectives rather than conduct or 
     manners of compliance;
       ``(ii) establish economic incentives to encourage desired 
     behavior;
       ``(iii) provide information upon which choices can be made 
     by the public; or
       ``(iv) incorporate other innovative alternatives rather 
     than agency actions that specify conduct or manners of 
     compliance.
       ``(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       ``(A) the potential costs and benefits associated with 
     potential alternative rules and other responses considered 
     under section 553(b)(5), including direct, indirect, and 
     cumulative costs and benefits and estimated impacts on jobs 
     (including an estimate of the net gain or loss in domestic 
     jobs), wages, economic growth, innovation, and economic 
     competitiveness;
       ``(B) means to increase the cost-effectiveness of any 
     Federal response; and
       ``(C) incentives for innovation, consistency, 
     predictability, lower costs of enforcement and compliance (to 
     government entities, regulated entities, and the public), and 
     flexibility.
       ``(c) Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Major 
     Rules, High-Impact Rules, Negative-Impact on Jobs and Wages 
     Rules, and Rules Involving Novel Legal or Policy Issues.--In 
     the case of a rule making for a major rule, a high-impact 
     rule, a negative-impact on jobs and wages rule, or a rule 
     that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of 
     statutory mandates, not later than 90 days before a notice of 
     proposed rule making is published in the Federal Register, an 
     agency shall publish advance notice of proposed rule making 
     in the Federal Register. In publishing such advance notice, 
     the agency shall--
       ``(1) include a written statement identifying, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(A) the nature and significance of the problem the agency 
     may address with a rule, including data and other evidence 
     and information on which the agency expects to rely for the 
     proposed rule;
       ``(B) the legal authority under which a rule may be 
     proposed, including whether a rule making is required by 
     statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether 
     the agency has discretion to commence a rule making;
       ``(C) preliminary information available to the agency 
     concerning the other considerations specified in subsection 
     (b);
       ``(D) in the case of a rule that involves a novel legal or 
     policy issue arising out of statutory mandates, the nature of 
     and potential reasons to adopt the novel legal or policy 
     position upon which the agency may base a proposed rule; and
       ``(E) an achievable objective for the rule and metrics by 
     which the agency will measure progress toward that objective;
       ``(2) solicit written data, views or argument from 
     interested persons concerning the information and issues 
     addressed in the advance notice; and
       ``(3) provide for a period of not fewer than 60 days for 
     interested persons to submit such written data, views, or 
     argument to the agency.
       ``(d) Notices of Proposed Rule Making; Determinations of 
     Other Agency Course.--(1) Before it determines to propose a 
     rule, and following completion of procedures under subsection 
     (c), if applicable, the agency shall consult with the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs. If the agency thereafter determines to propose a 
     rule, the agency shall publish a notice of proposed rule 
     making, which shall include--
       ``(A) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public 
     rule making proceedings;
       ``(B) reference to the legal authority under which the rule 
     is proposed;
       ``(C) the terms of the proposed rule;
       ``(D) a description of information known to the agency on 
     the subject and issues of the proposed rule, including but 
     not limited to--
       ``(i) a summary of information known to the agency 
     concerning the considerations specified in subsection (b);
       ``(ii) a summary of additional information the agency 
     provided to and obtained from interested persons under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(iii) a summary of any preliminary risk assessment or 
     regulatory impact analysis performed by the agency; and
       ``(iv) information specifically identifying all data, 
     studies, models, and other evidence or information considered 
     or used by the agency in connection with its determination to 
     propose the rule;
       ``(E)(i) a reasoned preliminary determination of need for 
     the rule based on the information described under 
     subparagraph (D);
       ``(ii) an additional statement of whether a rule is 
     required by statute; and
       ``(iii) an achievable objective for the rule and metrics by 
     which the agency will measure progress toward that objective;
       ``(F) a reasoned preliminary determination that the 
     benefits of the proposed rule meet the relevant statutory 
     objectives and justify the costs of the proposed rule 
     (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6)), based on the information described under 
     subparagraph (D);
       ``(G) a discussion of--
       ``(i) the alternatives to the proposed rule, and other 
     alternative responses, considered by the agency under 
     subsection (b);
       ``(ii) the costs and benefits of those alternatives 
     (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6));
       ``(iii) whether those alternatives meet relevant statutory 
     objectives; and
       ``(iv) why the agency did not propose any of those 
     alternatives; and
       ``(H)(i) a statement of whether existing rules have created 
     or contributed to the problem the agency seeks to address 
     with the proposed rule; and
       ``(ii) if so, whether or not the agency proposes to amend 
     or rescind any such rules, and why.

     All information provided to or considered by the agency, and 
     steps to obtain information by the agency, in connection with 
     its determination to propose the rule, including any 
     preliminary risk assessment or regulatory impact analysis 
     prepared by the agency and all other information prepared or 
     described by the agency under subparagraph (D) and, at the 
     discretion of the President or the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, information 
     provided by

[[Page H258]]

     that Office in consultations with the agency, shall be placed 
     in the docket for the proposed rule and made accessible to 
     the public by electronic means and otherwise for the public's 
     use when the notice of proposed rule making is published.
       ``(2)(A) If the agency undertakes procedures under 
     subsection (c) and determines thereafter not to propose a 
     rule, the agency shall, following consultation with the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, publish a 
     notice of determination of other agency course. A notice of 
     determination of other agency course shall include 
     information required by paragraph (1)(D) to be included in a 
     notice of proposed rule making and a description of the 
     alternative response the agency determined to adopt.
       ``(B) If in its determination of other agency course the 
     agency makes a determination to amend or rescind an existing 
     rule, the agency need not undertake additional proceedings 
     under subsection (c) before it publishes a notice of proposed 
     rule making to amend or rescind the existing rule.

     All information provided to or considered by the agency, and 
     steps to obtain information by the agency, in connection with 
     its determination of other agency course, including but not 
     limited to any preliminary risk assessment or regulatory 
     impact analysis prepared by the agency and all other 
     information that would be required to be prepared or 
     described by the agency under paragraph (1)(D) if the agency 
     had determined to publish a notice of proposed rule making 
     and, at the discretion of the President or the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
     information provided by that Office in consultations with the 
     agency, shall be placed in the docket for the determination 
     and made accessible to the public by electronic means and 
     otherwise for the public's use when the notice of 
     determination is published.
       ``(3) After notice of proposed rule making required by this 
     section, the agency shall provide interested persons an 
     opportunity to participate in the rule making through 
     submission of written data, views, or arguments with or 
     without opportunity for oral presentation, except that--
       ``(A) if a hearing is required under paragraph (4)(B) or 
     subsection (e), opportunity for oral presentation shall be 
     provided pursuant to that requirement; or
       ``(B) when other than under subsection (e) of this section 
     rules are required by statute or at the discretion of the 
     agency to be made on the record after opportunity for an 
     agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 shall apply, and 
     paragraph (4), the requirements of subsection (e) to receive 
     comment outside of the procedures of sections 556 and 557, 
     and the petition procedures of subsection (e)(6) shall not 
     apply.
     The agency shall provide not fewer than 60 days for 
     interested persons to submit written data, views, or argument 
     (or 120 days in the case of a proposed major or high-impact 
     rule).
       ``(4)(A) Within 30 days of publication of notice of 
     proposed rule making, a member of the public may petition for 
     a hearing in accordance with section 556 to determine whether 
     any evidence or other information upon which the agency bases 
     the proposed rule fails to comply with the Information 
     Quality Act.
       ``(B)(i) The agency may, upon review of the petition, 
     determine without further process to exclude from the rule 
     making the evidence or other information that is the subject 
     of the petition and, if appropriate, withdraw the proposed 
     rule. The agency shall promptly publish any such 
     determination.
       ``(ii) If the agency does not resolve the petition under 
     the procedures of clause (i), it shall grant any such 
     petition that presents a prima facie case that evidence or 
     other information upon which the agency bases the proposed 
     rule fails to comply with the Information Quality Act, hold 
     the requested hearing not later than 30 days after receipt of 
     the petition, provide a reasonable opportunity for cross-
     examination at the hearing, and decide the issues presented 
     by the petition not later than 60 days after receipt of the 
     petition. The agency may deny any petition that it determines 
     does not present such a prima facie case.
       ``(C) There shall be no judicial review of the agency's 
     disposition of issues considered and decided or determined 
     under subparagraph (B)(ii) until judicial review of the 
     agency's final action. There shall be no judicial review of 
     an agency's determination to withdraw a proposed rule under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) on the basis of the petition.
       ``(D) Failure to petition for a hearing under this 
     paragraph shall not preclude judicial review of any claim 
     based on the Information Quality Act under chapter 7 of this 
     title.
       ``(e) Hearings for High-Impact Rules.--Following notice of 
     a proposed rule making, receipt of comments on the proposed 
     rule, and any hearing held under subsection (d)(4), and 
     before adoption of any high-impact rule, the agency shall 
     hold a hearing in accordance with sections 556 and 557, 
     unless such hearing is waived by all participants in the rule 
     making other than the agency. The agency shall provide a 
     reasonable opportunity for cross-examination at such hearing. 
     The hearing shall be limited to the following issues of fact, 
     except that participants at the hearing other than the agency 
     may waive determination of any such issue:
       ``(1) Whether the agency's asserted factual predicate for 
     the rule is supported by the evidence.
       ``(2) Whether there is an alternative to the proposed rule 
     that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at a 
     lower cost (including all costs to be considered under 
     subsection (b)(6)) than the proposed rule.
       ``(3) If there is more than one alternative to the proposed 
     rule that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at 
     a lower cost than the proposed rule, which alternative would 
     achieve the relevant statutory objectives at the lowest cost.
       ``(4) Whether, if the agency proposes to adopt a rule that 
     is more costly than the least costly alternative that would 
     achieve the relevant statutory objectives (including all 
     costs to be considered under subsection (b)(6)), the 
     additional benefits of the more costly rule exceed the 
     additional costs of the more costly rule.
       ``(5) Whether the evidence and other information upon which 
     the agency bases the proposed rule meets the requirements of 
     the Information Quality Act.
       ``(6) Upon petition by an interested person who has 
     participated in the rule making, other issues relevant to the 
     rule making, unless the agency determines that consideration 
     of the issues at the hearing would not advance consideration 
     of the rule or would, in light of the nature of the need for 
     agency action, unreasonably delay completion of the rule 
     making. An agency shall grant or deny a petition under this 
     paragraph within 30 days of its receipt of the petition.

     No later than 45 days before any hearing held under this 
     subsection or sections 556 and 557, the agency shall publish 
     in the Federal Register a notice specifying the proposed rule 
     to be considered at such hearing, the issues to be considered 
     at the hearing, and the time and place for such hearing, 
     except that such notice may be issued not later than 15 days 
     before a hearing held under subsection (d)(4)(B).
       ``(f) Final Rules.--(1) The agency shall adopt a rule only 
     following consultation with the Administrator of the Office 
     of Information and Regulatory Affairs to facilitate 
     compliance with applicable rule making requirements.
       ``(2) The agency shall adopt a rule only on the basis of 
     the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, 
     economic, and other evidence and information concerning the 
     need for, consequences of, and alternatives to the rule.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the agency 
     shall adopt the least costly rule considered during the rule 
     making (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6)) that meets relevant statutory objectives.
       ``(B) The agency may adopt a rule that is more costly than 
     the least costly alternative that would achieve the relevant 
     statutory objectives only if the additional benefits of the 
     more costly rule justify its additional costs and only if the 
     agency explains its reason for doing so based on interests of 
     public health, safety or welfare that are clearly within the 
     scope of the statutory provision authorizing the rule.
       ``(4) When it adopts a final rule, the agency shall publish 
     a notice of final rule making. The notice shall include--
       ``(A) a concise, general statement of the rule's basis and 
     purpose;
       ``(B) the agency's reasoned final determination of need for 
     a rule to address the problem the agency seeks to address 
     with the rule, including a statement of whether a rule is 
     required by statute and a summary of any final risk 
     assessment or regulatory impact analysis prepared by the 
     agency;
       ``(C) the agency's reasoned final determination that the 
     benefits of the rule meet the relevant statutory objectives 
     and justify the rule's costs (including all costs to be 
     considered under subsection (b)(6));
       ``(D) the agency's reasoned final determination not to 
     adopt any of the alternatives to the proposed rule considered 
     by the agency during the rule making, including--
       ``(i) the agency's reasoned final determination that no 
     alternative considered achieved the relevant statutory 
     objectives with lower costs (including all costs to be 
     considered under subsection (b)(6)) than the rule; or
       ``(ii) the agency's reasoned determination that its 
     adoption of a more costly rule complies with subsection 
     (f)(3)(B);
       ``(E) the agency's reasoned final determination--
       ``(i) that existing rules have not created or contributed 
     to the problem the agency seeks to address with the rule; or
       ``(ii) that existing rules have created or contributed to 
     the problem the agency seeks to address with the rule, and, 
     if so--
       ``(I) why amendment or rescission of such existing rules is 
     not alone sufficient to respond to the problem; and
       ``(II) whether and how the agency intends to amend or 
     rescind the existing rule separate from adoption of the rule;
       ``(F) the agency's reasoned final determination that the 
     evidence and other information upon which the agency bases 
     the rule complies with the Information Quality Act;
       ``(G) the agency's reasoned final determination that the 
     rule meets the objectives that the agency identified in 
     subsection (d)(1)(E)(iii) or that other objectives are more 
     appropriate in light of the full administrative record and 
     the rule meets those objectives;
       ``(H) the agency's reasoned final determination that it did 
     not deviate from the metrics the agency included in 
     subsection (d)(1)(E)(iii) or that other metrics are more

[[Page H259]]

     appropriate in light of the full administrative record and 
     the agency did not deviate from those metrics;
       ``(I)(i) for any major rule, high-impact rule, or negative-
     impact on jobs and wages rule, the agency's plan for review 
     of the rule no less than every ten years to determine 
     whether, based upon evidence, there remains a need for the 
     rule, whether the rule is in fact achieving statutory 
     objectives, whether the rule's benefits continue to justify 
     its costs, and whether the rule can be modified or rescinded 
     to reduce costs while continuing to achieve statutory 
     objectives; and
       ``(ii) review of a rule under a plan required by clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph shall take into account the factors and 
     criteria set forth in subsections (b) through (f) of section 
     553 of this title; and
       ``(J) for any negative-impact on jobs and wages rule, a 
     statement that the head of the agency that made the rule 
     approved the rule knowing about the findings and 
     determination of the agency or the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that qualified 
     the rule as a negative impact on jobs and wages rule.

     All information considered by the agency in connection with 
     its adoption of the rule, and, at the discretion of the 
     President or the Administrator of the Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs, information provided by that Office 
     in consultations with the agency, shall be placed in the 
     docket for the rule and made accessible to the public for the 
     public's use no later than when the rule is adopted.
       ``(g) Exceptions From Notice and Hearing Requirements.--(1) 
     Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, the 
     following do not apply to interpretive rules, general 
     statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, 
     procedure, or practice:
       ``(A) Subsections (c) through (e).
       ``(B) Paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (f).
       ``(C) Subparagraphs (B) through (H) of subsection (f)(4).
       ``(2)(A) When the agency for good cause, based upon 
     evidence, finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief 
     statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that 
     compliance with subsection (c), (d), or (e) or requirements 
     to render final determinations under subsection (f) of this 
     section before the issuance of an interim rule is 
     impracticable or contrary to the public interest, including 
     interests of national security, such subsections or 
     requirements to render final determinations shall not apply 
     to the agency's adoption of an interim rule.
       ``(B) If, following compliance with subparagraph (A) of 
     this paragraph, the agency adopts an interim rule, it shall 
     commence proceedings that comply fully with subsections (d) 
     through (f) of this section immediately upon publication of 
     the interim rule, shall treat the publication of the interim 
     rule as publication of a notice of proposed rule making and 
     shall not be required to issue supplemental notice other than 
     to complete full compliance with subsection (d). No less than 
     270 days from publication of the interim rule (or 18 months 
     in the case of a major rule or high-impact rule), the agency 
     shall complete rule making under subsections (d) through (f) 
     of this subsection and take final action to adopt a final 
     rule or rescind the interim rule. If the agency fails to take 
     timely final action, the interim rule will cease to have the 
     effect of law.
       ``(C) Other than in cases involving interests of national 
     security, upon the agency's publication of an interim rule 
     without compliance with subsection (c), (d), or (e) or 
     requirements to render final determinations under subsection 
     (f) of this section, an interested party may seek immediate 
     judicial review under chapter 7 of this title of the agency's 
     determination to adopt such interim rule. The record on such 
     review shall include all documents and information considered 
     by the agency and any additional information presented by a 
     party that the court determines necessary to consider to 
     assure justice.
       ``(3) When the agency for good cause finds (and 
     incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons 
     therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public 
     procedure thereon are unnecessary, including because agency 
     rule making is undertaken only to correct a de minimis 
     technical or clerical error in a previously issued rule or 
     for other noncontroversial purposes, the agency may publish a 
     rule without compliance with subsection (c), (d), (e), or 
     (f)(1)-(3) and (f)(4)(B)-(F). If the agency receives 
     significant adverse comment within 60 days after publication 
     of the rule, it shall treat the notice of the rule as a 
     notice of proposed rule making and complete rule making in 
     compliance with subsections (d) and (f).
       ``(h) Additional Requirements for Hearings.--When a hearing 
     is required under subsection (e) or is otherwise required by 
     statute or at the agency's discretion before adoption of a 
     rule, the agency shall comply with the requirements of 
     sections 556 and 557 in addition to the requirements of 
     subsection (f) in adopting the rule and in providing notice 
     of the rule's adoption.
       ``(i) Date of Publication of Rule.--The required 
     publication or service of a substantive final or interim rule 
     shall be made not less than 30 days before the effective date 
     of the rule, except--
       ``(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an 
     exemption or relieves a restriction;
       ``(2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or
       ``(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 
     found and published with the rule.
       ``(j) Right To Petition.--Each agency shall give an 
     interested person the right to petition for the issuance, 
     amendment, or repeal of a rule.
       ``(k) Rule Making Guidelines.--(1)(A) The Administrator of 
     the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall 
     establish guidelines for the assessment, including 
     quantitative and qualitative assessment, of the costs and 
     benefits of proposed and final rules and other economic 
     issues or issues related to risk that are relevant to rule 
     making under this title. The rigor of cost-benefit analysis 
     required by such guidelines shall be commensurate, in the 
     Administrator's determination, with the economic impact of 
     the rule.
       ``(B) To ensure that agencies use the best available 
     techniques to quantify and evaluate anticipated present and 
     future benefits, costs, other economic issues, and risks as 
     accurately as possible, the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs shall regularly update 
     guidelines established under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall also issue guidelines to promote 
     coordination, simplification and harmonization of agency 
     rules during the rule making process and otherwise. Such 
     guidelines shall assure that each agency avoids regulations 
     that are inconsistent or incompatible with, or duplicative 
     of, its other regulations and those of other Federal agencies 
     and drafts its regulations to be simple and easy to 
     understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for 
     uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.
       ``(3) To ensure consistency in Federal rule making, the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs shall--
       ``(A) issue guidelines and otherwise take action to ensure 
     that rule makings conducted in whole or in part under 
     procedures specified in provisions of law other than those of 
     subchapter II of this title conform to the fullest extent 
     allowed by law with the procedures set forth in section 553 
     of this title; and
       ``(B) issue guidelines for the conduct of hearings under 
     subsections 553(d)(4) and 553(e) of this section, including 
     to assure a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination. 
     Each agency shall adopt regulations for the conduct of 
     hearings consistent with the guidelines issued under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(4) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall issue guidelines pursuant to the 
     Information Quality Act to apply in rule making proceedings 
     under sections 553, 556, and 557 of this title. In all cases, 
     such guidelines, and the Administrator's specific 
     determinations regarding agency compliance with such 
     guidelines, shall be entitled to judicial deference.
       ``(l) Inclusion in the Record of Certain Documents and 
     Information.--The agency shall include in the record for a 
     rule making, and shall make available by electronic means and 
     otherwise, all documents and information prepared or 
     considered by the agency during the proceeding, including, at 
     the discretion of the President or the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, documents and 
     information communicated by that Office during consultation 
     with the Agency.
       ``(m) Monetary Policy Exemption.--Nothing in subsection 
     (b)(6), subparagraphs (F) and (G) of subsection (d)(1), 
     subsection (e), subsection (f)(3), and subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D) of subsection (f)(5) shall apply to rule makings that 
     concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal 
     Open Market Committee.''.

     SEC. 4. AGENCY GUIDANCE; PROCEDURES TO ISSUE MAJOR GUIDANCE; 
                   PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE GUIDELINES FOR 
                   ISSUANCE OF GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 553a. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major 
       guidance; authority to issue guidelines for issuance of 
       guidance

       ``(a) Before issuing any major guidance, or guidance that 
     involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of 
     statutory mandates, an agency shall--
       ``(1) make and document a reasoned determination that--
       ``(A) assures that such guidance is understandable and 
     complies with relevant statutory objectives and regulatory 
     provisions (including any statutory deadlines for agency 
     action);
       ``(B) summarizes the evidence and data on which the agency 
     will base the guidance;
       ``(C) identifies the costs and benefits (including all 
     costs to be considered during a rule making under section 
     553(b) of this title) of conduct conforming to such guidance 
     and assures that such benefits justify such costs; and
       ``(D) describes alternatives to such guidance and their 
     costs and benefits (including all costs to be considered 
     during a rule making under section 553(b) of this title) and 
     explains why the agency rejected those alternatives; and
       ``(2) confer with the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs on the issuance of such 
     guidance to assure that the guidance is reasonable, 
     understandable, consistent with relevant statutory and 
     regulatory provisions and requirements or

[[Page H260]]

     practices of other agencies, does not produce costs that are 
     unjustified by the guidance's benefits, and is otherwise 
     appropriate.
     Upon issuing major guidance, or guidance that involves a 
     novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory 
     mandates, the agency shall publish the documentation required 
     by subparagraph (1) by electronic means and otherwise.
       ``(b) Agency guidance--
       ``(1) is not legally binding and may not be relied upon by 
     an agency as legal grounds for agency action;
       ``(2) shall state in a plain, prominent and permanent 
     manner that it is not legally binding; and
       ``(3) shall, at the time it is issued or upon request, be 
     made available by the issuing agency to interested persons 
     and the public by electronic means and otherwise.
     Agencies shall avoid the issuance of guidance that is 
     inconsistent or incompatible with, or duplicative of, the 
     agency's governing statutes or regulations, with the goal of 
     minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation 
     arising from such uncertainty.
       ``(c) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall have authority to issue guidelines 
     for use by the agencies in the issuance of major guidance and 
     other guidance. Such guidelines shall assure that each agency 
     avoids issuing guidance documents that are inconsistent or 
     incompatible with, or duplicative of, the law, its other 
     regulations, or the regulations of other Federal agencies and 
     drafts its guidance documents to be simple and easy to 
     understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for 
     uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 553 the following new 
     item:

``553a. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major guidance; authority 
              to issue guidelines for issuance of guidance.''.

     SEC. 5. HEARINGS; PRESIDING EMPLOYEES; POWERS AND DUTIES; 
                   BURDEN OF PROOF; EVIDENCE; RECORD AS BASIS OF 
                   DECISION.

       Section 556 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e)(1) The transcript of testimony and exhibits, together 
     with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, 
     constitutes the exclusive record for decision in accordance 
     with section 557 and shall be made available to the parties 
     and the public by electronic means and, upon payment of 
     lawfully prescribed costs, otherwise. When an agency decision 
     rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in 
     the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely 
     request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, in 
     a proceeding held under this section pursuant to section 
     553(d)(4) or 553(e), the record for decision shall also 
     include any information that is part of the record of 
     proceedings under section 553.
       ``(f) When an agency conducts rule making under this 
     section and section 557 directly after concluding proceedings 
     upon an advance notice of proposed rule making under section 
     553(c), the matters to be considered and determinations to be 
     made shall include, among other relevant matters and 
     determinations, the matters and determinations described in 
     subsections (b) and (f) of section 553.
       ``(g) Upon receipt of a petition for a hearing under this 
     section, the agency shall grant the petition in the case of 
     any major rule, unless the agency reasonably determines that 
     a hearing would not advance consideration of the rule or 
     would, in light of the need for agency action, unreasonably 
     delay completion of the rule making. The agency shall publish 
     its decision to grant or deny the petition when it renders 
     the decision, including an explanation of the grounds for 
     decision. The information contained in the petition shall in 
     all cases be included in the administrative record. This 
     subsection shall not apply to rule makings that concern 
     monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open 
     Market Committee.''.

     SEC. 6. ACTIONS REVIEWABLE.

       Section 704 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Agency action made'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Agency action made''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Denial by an 
     agency of a correction request or, where administrative 
     appeal is provided for, denial of an appeal, under an 
     administrative mechanism described in subsection (b)(2)(B) of 
     the Information Quality Act, or the failure of an agency 
     within 90 days to grant or deny such request or appeal, shall 
     be final action for purposes of this section.
       ``(b) Other than in cases involving interests of national 
     security, notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, 
     upon the agency's publication of an interim rule without 
     compliance with section 553(c), (d), or (e) or requirements 
     to render final determinations under subsection (f) of 
     section 553, an interested party may seek immediate judicial 
     review under this chapter of the agency's determination to 
     adopt such rule on an interim basis. Review shall be limited 
     to whether the agency abused its discretion to adopt the 
     interim rule without compliance with section 553(c), (d), or 
     (e) or without rendering final determinations under 
     subsection (f) of section 553.''.

     SEC. 7. SCOPE OF REVIEW.

       Section 706 of title 5, United States Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``To the extent necessary'' and inserting 
     ``(a) To the extent necessary'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A) of subsection (a) (as designated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section), by inserting after ``in 
     accordance with law'' the following: ``(including the 
     Information Quality Act)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The court shall not defer to the agency's--
       ``(1) interpretation of an agency rule if the agency did 
     not comply with the procedures of section 553 or sections 
     556-557 of chapter 5 of this title to issue the 
     interpretation;
       ``(2) determination of the costs and benefits or other 
     economic or risk assessment of the action, if the agency 
     failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and 
     assessments established by the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs under section 553(k);
       ``(3) determinations made in the adoption of an interim 
     rule; or
       ``(4) guidance.
       ``(c) The court shall review agency denials of petitions 
     under section 553(e)(6) or any other petition for a hearing 
     under sections 556 and 557 for abuse of agency discretion.''.

     SEC. 8. ADDED DEFINITION.

       Section 701(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end, 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) `substantial evidence' means such relevant evidence 
     as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 
     conclusion in light of the record considered as a whole, 
     taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts 
     from the weight of the evidence relied upon by the agency to 
     support its decision.''.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act to--
       (1) sections 553, 556, and 704 of title 5, United States 
     Code;
       (2) subsection (b) of section 701 of such title;
       (3) paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 706(b) of such title; 
     and
       (4) subsection (c) of section 706 of such title, shall not 
     apply to any rule makings pending or completed on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those printed 
in part A of House Report 114-2. Each such amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 114-2.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 8, strike ``and economic competitiveness'' and 
     insert the following: ``economic competitiveness, and impacts 
     on low income populations''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 27, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It ensures that 
agencies must take into consideration the impacts on low-income 
communities when they develop regulations.
  This amendment is based on a 1994 executive order from President 
Clinton that was intended to protect low-income populations from the 
negative effects of regulations.
  Burdensome regulations have a real impact on families, regardless of 
their race or ethnicity. What makes sense on a bureaucrat's desk in 
Washington does not always work in the real world. In fact, these 
regulations are hurting people, especially in economically depressed 
communities. People have lost jobs and are facing increasing prices for 
energy, food, health care, and more.
  The families who bear the brunt are not just statistics. They are 
fellow Americans. We need to show compassion towards them, especially 
those most vulnerable.
  Regulations, as you have heard, are costing our economy $1.8 trillion 
each year, costing the average family $15,000. So what does that mean 
for the

[[Page H261]]

farmer in San Joaquin Valley, California, or the coal miner in Hazard, 
Kentucky, or the widow on a fixed income in Marietta, Ohio? They are 
worried about providing for their families. What happens if they lose 
their livelihood because of a new regulation?
  The bureaucrats in Washington who are writing these excessive 
regulations are seemingly focused on saving the world but are 
forgetting what is happening to American families. I want them to 
understand the impact they are having on people's lives.
  The costs of these regulations are born by people who can least 
afford it, not by the agencies writing the regulations. These 
bureaucrats should get out from behind their desks and come to 
communities in West Virginia and Georgia and Montana and across the 
Nation that are still struggling economically.
  This is not just about coal miners and the energy industry. Excessive 
regulations are hurting farmers, manufacturers, health care workers, 
and small businesses of every kind.
  Rather than blindly issuing regulations in pursuit of an ideological 
goal, agencies should stop and consider what they are doing, be more 
empathetic, take into account what would happen to a family that is 
living paycheck to paycheck or a senior on fixed income.
  Too often, Americans all across this country believe that no one in 
Washington really cares about them. This amendment will help change 
that perception. Let's show some compassion to people and families that 
are struggling.
  Plain and simple: we must ensure that the Federal agencies truly, 
truly take into consideration those that bear the burden of these 
regulations.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte, for 
his support of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McKinley 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the McKinley amendment--as bad as things 
already are in the bill--adds an additional requirement to the bill's 
more than 60 analytical new requirements for the rulemaking process by 
requiring agencies to also consider economic competitiveness and impact 
on low-income populations in the rulemaking process. Now, the AFL-CIO, 
Public Citizen, and Coalition for Sensible Safeguards all oppose this 
amendment because it is redundant and inflexible.
  This amendment is largely redundant of existing requirements. 
Executive Order 12898 already protects both low-income communities and 
communities of color. That executive order already requires agencies to 
take into account distributional impacts on these populations. So I 
want you to know that this is not the way to go. This amendment makes a 
totally unacceptable bill even more unacceptable.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, which would have devastating impacts and consequences for 
minority and low-income populations. Under Executive Order 12898, 
agencies already must account for the impact of rulemaking on both of 
these communities.
  The amendment, which makes no accommodation for minority populations, 
would override existing protections while the underlying bill would 
override every law protecting the public interest in the rulemaking 
process.
  In short, these sweeping policy changes would be a nightmare for 
vulnerable populations and endangered communities. That is why the AFL-
CIO, along with 70 other public interest groups, opposes this amendment 
and the underlying bills.
  I listened to the list of supporters rattled off by the other side 
for this bill. They were all trade groups that would benefit 
financially from this bill. No academics or others of objective 
opinions were mentioned, and I think the public should note that.
  My colleague from Illinois, Representative Bobby Rush, offered an 
amendment to this bill specifically to protect these communities by 
promoting environmental justice. If the majority was serious about 
protecting these communities, they would have accepted the Rush 
amendment instead of attempting to mislead the public through a gotcha 
amendment such as this.
  If the majority was serious about protecting the American people, we 
wouldn't be considering this dangerous, misguided, and ideologically 
driven piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McKINLEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, 
Chairman Goodlatte.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I hear from the other side of the aisle 
about how low-income people are being taken care of already because the 
President of the United States has told these agencies to ``take into 
account their status.'' But guess what? That has no judicial 
enforceability. So if a low-income person really wants to seek redress 
of their grievances through a regulation that is going to cost them 
their job, cost them their business, whatever the case might be, they 
have no recourse to the courts. Among those who suffer most unfairly 
from overreaching regulations are lower-income families and 
individuals.
  The other side has criticized our list of entities supporting this. 
But these are all job-creating organizations. I haven't heard of many 
job-creating organizations who are opposed to this legislation.
  New regulations often represent the policy preferences of elites and 
pro-regulatory advocates. Recent regulations aimed at driving down the 
use of coal and other fossil fuels are an example of this.
  What growing research shows, and what policy elites too often ignore, 
is that the costs of new regulations often have regressive effects on 
those with lower incomes. For example, when electricity rates go up 
because Federal regulators clamp down on the use of cheap energy, real 
money that lower-income households need to secure better housing, 
better educational choices, or other essential needs goes instead to 
pay for unnecessarily excessive regulations.
  This is unfair. Agencies should be required to identify and reveal 
the unseen adverse effects of proposed new regulations on low-income 
households. The gentleman's amendment accomplishes this important goal.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, we just heard the chairman 
talk about, this is an executive order. And I have heard from folks on 
the other side that this is an executive order. Perhaps it is time to 
codify this executive order.
  If it had merit back in 1994, let's make it the rule; make it a law. 
This amendment will accomplish that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a wolf in sheep's 
clothing. It would not change the bill's overarching regulatory 
purpose, nor does it address the many concerns expressed by scores of 
public interest groups that strenuously oppose the bill.
  I think the President is very sensitive to the working class, the 
poor, and minorities especially, and I enjoy hearing this commentary 
coming from the other side of the aisle.
  If the majority were serious about protecting the low-income 
population, it would have made in order the amendment offered by our 
colleague from Illinois, Bobby Rush, to promote environmental justice. 
The Rush amendment would have safeguarded existing protections while 
mitigating the devastating consequences of H.R. 185 on both minority 
and low-income populations.
  I repeat, AFL-CIO, Public Citizen, and the Coalition for Sensible 
Safeguards all oppose the McKinley amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the

[[Page H262]]

amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia will be 
postponed.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 114-2.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 10. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES AND GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553a (as inserted by 
     section 4 of this Act) the following new section:

     ``Sec. 553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance

       ``Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as amended 
     by the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015, and section 
     553a shall not apply in the case of any rule or guidance 
     proposed, issued, or made that the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget determines would result in net job 
     creation. Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as in 
     effect before the enactment of the Regulatory Accountability 
     Act of 2015, shall apply to such proposed rules, final rules, 
     or guidance, as appropriate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 553 the following new 
     item:

``553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance.' '''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 27, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment.
  It is clear the economy is growing at its fastest pace in years, 
while unemployment is dropping rapidly. According to the most recent 
reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employers added 252,000 
jobs in December, exceeding expectations and driving the unemployment 
rate down to 5.6 percent, the lowest level since the recession.
  There have been actually 54, 55 straight months of positive jobs 
growth over the last 6 years, Mr. Chairman. And this is an important 
consideration when you consider the faulty premise being offered in 
support of the underlying legislation here, that regulations hurt 
business and hurt job growth. They do not.

                              {time}  1600

  My amendment would ensure that this rapid growth and progress 
continues by exempting from H.R. 185 all rules that the Office of 
Management and Budget determines would result in net job creation.
  Several of my Republican colleagues have complained in today's debate 
about a regulatory system that costs American families $15,000 in 
annual costs. These figures rely on debunked sources from studies that 
do not assume current economic conditions or even account for the 
benefits of regulations.
  We even had a display of 1 week's worth of so-called regulations by 
one of my colleagues on the other side a short while ago purporting to 
show the sheer volume of regulations that were issued in 1 week when, 
in fact, a lot of those papers had to do with 34 final rules published 
during that period, 31 proposed rules--many of which were minor in 
nature--and 277 notices of administrative minutia such as public 
meetings, when and where public meetings were to be held, and also the 
availability of letters regarding sunscreen products.
  So it really tries to mislead by holding up a stack and contending 
that one business in one particular area has to comply with all of 
these so-called regulations that are purported to be in a stack of 
papers. That is just not true. It is misleading to the public.
  In many cases, rules issued in 2015 have been largely administrative 
and minor. For instance, the Federal Aviation Administration has issued 
rules concerning airworthiness directives while the Coast Guard has 
issued its routine rules for bridge opening schedules.
  Now, if we didn't have rules for when bridges should be opening and 
how to open and how to warn people, do you think we could claim 
ourselves to be living in such a civilized society as the one we live 
in?
  We have got to have rules. I will take note of the fact that when I 
went to kindergarten, we had a set of rules up on the board. Everywhere 
you go, you are going to have a set of rules: the rules of the Federal 
Government--which are vast and broad--foreign policy, domestic policy, 
space, cyberspace.
  I mean, this country that we live in is not a great country because 
it chose simplicity as its model. We have a lot of rules that we have 
to live by, and those are the things that help make America a great 
country.
  Guess what, ladies and gentlemen, it is you and your family members 
and friends who populate this Federal Government. You are the ones who 
are the rulemakers. They want to try to turn you into people who are 
trying to do something to hurt others when the only thing you are 
trying to do is do your job that will help others be able to live lives 
and create a better America for ourselves and, most importantly, our 
children.
  Don't get it twisted. Don't think that regulations are hurting you. 
Regulations are causing what benefits you are taking advantage of now. 
These are the very rules that undergird our Nation's regulatory system 
and successful day-to-day operations.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, to the point just raised by the 
gentleman from Georgia, I want to quote Daniel Webster, who is also 
quoted right up there above us in the Chamber.
  He says, ``It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was 
made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There 
are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. 
They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.''
  I share and welcome the gentleman from Georgia's concerns about the 
impact of regulations on the people and on their jobs, but the right 
way to address that concern is to join me in supporting this bill. It 
includes the Rothfus-Barr amendment added to the legislation in the 
113th Congress that requires agencies to do a much better job 
identifying adverse job impacts before they impose the regulations.
  The gentleman's amendment represents the wrong way to address job 
concerns. That is because it would give the executive branch a strong 
incentive to manipulate its jobs impact and cost-benefit analysis to 
avoid the requirements of the bill, including the Rothfus-Barr 
amendment, rather than comply with that requirement.
  The amendment also puts the cart before the horse, offering carve-
outs from the bill, based on factors that cannot be determined 
adequately unless the important analytical requirements in the bill are 
applied in the first place.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I would like to submit the 
following articles:

       [From the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, July 21, 2011]

     Economic Uncertainty and Poor Sales Help Explain Small Firms' 
              Disproportionate Job Losses During Downturn

                            Note To Editors

       New York.--The Federal Reserve Bank of New York today 
     released Why Small Businesses Were Hit Harder by the Recent 
     Recession, the latest article in the Current Issues in 
     Economics and Finance series from the Research and Statistics 
     Group.
       Uncertainty about economic conditions and poor sales were 
     the main reasons why small firms experienced steeper job 
     declines than large firms during the 2007-09 downturn, 
     according to analysis in the article. Furthermore, although 
     tightened access to credit and adverse financial conditions 
     also constrained small firms, a more pressing factor was the 
     decline in new investment and associated financing brought on 
     by low consumer demand for the firms products and services.
       Between December 2007 and December 2009, jobs declined 10.4 
     percent in small firms (those with fewer than fifty 
     employees). compared with 7.5 percent in large ones.
       In this article, Aysegul Sahin, Sagiri Kitao, Anna 
     Cororaton and Sergiu Laiu seek to account for the downturn's 
     disproportionate effect on small firms. The authors review 
     data on employment patterns and industry composition of firms 
     by size. They

[[Page H263]]

     also explore possible links between credit availability and 
     firm performance by analyzing national surveys and 
     established data series on economic activity and business 
     conditions.
       The authors determine that industry composition of job 
     losses fails to explain the deeper job declines among small 
     firms, as these businesses were hit harder than large ones 
     regardless of industry. And while some small firms indeed 
     experienced limited credit availability, this factor was a 
     secondary driver of the difficulties they encountered.
       Rather, the authors concluded that demand factors--notably, 
     economic uncertainty and poor sales owing to reduced consumer 
     demand--were the most important reasons for the weak 
     performance and sluggish recovery of small firms.
       Aysegul Sabin is an assistant vice president, Sagiri Kitao 
     a senior economist, and Anna Cororaton an assistant economist 
     in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Research and 
     Statistics Group; Sergiu Laiu is an associate business 
     support analyst in the Markets Group.
       Why Small Businesses Were Hit Harder by the Recent 
     Recession
                                  ____


          [From the FRBSF Economic Letter, February 11, 2013]

              Aggregate Demand and State-Level Employment

                      (By Atif Mian and Amir Sufi)

       What explains the sharp decline in U.S. employment from 
     2007 to 2009? Why has employment remained stubbornly low? 
     Survey data from the National Federation of Independent 
     Businesses show that the decline in state-level employment is 
     strongly correlated with the increase in the percentage of 
     businesses complaining about lack of demand. While business 
     concerns about government regulation and taxes also rose 
     steadily from 2008 to 2011, there is no evidence (hat job 
     losses were larger in states where businesses were more 
     worried about these factors.
       Understanding the large and persistent decline in 
     employment in the United States during the Great Recession of 
     2007-09 remains one the most vexing challenges in 
     macroeconomics. While there are many potential explanations, 
     three have garnered substantial support among economists:
       The aggregate demand channel, in which job losses were 
     driven by a sharp decline in consumer spending due to high 
     debt levels and the housing crash (Mian and Sufi 2012).
       Government-induced uncertainty, in which business 
     uncertainty about taxes and regulation fostered reluctance to 
     hire (Baker, Bloom, and Davis 2013; Leduc and Liu 2012a, b). 
     For example, Hubbard et al. (2012) write that ``uncertainty 
     over policy--particularly over tax and regulatory policy--
     limited both the recovery and job creation.''
       Business financing problems, in which businesses were 
     unable to get credit because of continued troubles in the 
     banking sector. Credit-starved businesses can't pursue 
     potentially profitable projects, reducing their hiring.
       This Economic Letter tests these alternative views using 
     state-level data from National Federation of Independent 
     Businesses (NFIB) monthly small business surveys (Dunkelberg 
     and Wade 2012). One enlightening survey question asks what is 
     the single most important problem facing the respondent's 
     business. Potential answers include taxes, inflation, poor 
     sales, financing and interest rates, cost of labor, 
     government requirements and red tape, competition from large 
     businesses, quality of labor, costs or availability of 
     insurance, and other. The NFIB has generously provided us 
     quarterly responses by state.


                           Aggregate evidence

       Figure 1 plots the percentage of respondents by quarter 
     citing poor sales, regulation and taxes, or financing and 
     interest rates as their most important problem. The 
     regulation and taxes category includes businesses citing 
     either ``taxes'' or ``government requirements and red tape.'' 
     Figure 1 also plots the employment-to-population ratio, which 
     declined sharply from 2007 to 2009 and has remained 
     persistently low during the recovery.
       The sharp decline in the employment-to-population ratio 
     corresponds closely to the big increase in the percentage of 
     businesses citing poor sales as their most important problem. 
     From the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009, this group 
     increased from 10% to over 30%. The trend is broadly 
     consistent with the aggregate demand channel. Employment 
     collapsed precisely when businesses began worrying about poor 
     sales.
       In contrast, the percentage of businesses citing financing 
     and interest rates as their top concern has hardly budged. It 
     was low in 2006 and has remained low throughout the recession 
     and recovery. This is especially surprising in the NFIB 
     survey, since small businesses are the enterprises most 
     likely to suffer during a period of tight credit. The survey 
     results do not support the view that availability of 
     financing for small businesses was a major reason for the 
     employment decline.
       The percentage of businesses citing regulation and taxes as 
     their most important concern rose steadily from the last few 
     quarters of the recession through 2012. This is consistent 
     with Bloom, Baker, and Davis (2013), who find that policy 
     uncertainty has been unusually high in recent years. 
     Meanwhile, the percentage citing poor sales has declined 
     since its recession peak, but remains well above its pre-
     recession level.


               State-level support for the demand channel

       Using aggregate data to test hypotheses about cause and 
     effect is notoriously difficult. For example, it could be 
     argued that the drop in employment and heightened business 
     concerns about poor sales both reflected a shock from a large 
     decline in productivity. Likewise, the increase in measures 
     of policy uncertainty could be associated with the weak 
     recovery in job growth. Which is cause and which is effect 
     might not be obvious. Examining the timing of these variables 
     can help. But it's still possible that expectations regarding 
     one variable could be driving the other. For example, 
     expectations of poor economic conditions could raise business 
     uncertainty about policies today.
       One solution is to use cross-sectional data across 
     geographic regions. Mian, Rao, and Sufi (2012) show that 2006 
     county-level household debt-to-income ratios were one of the 
     strongest predictors of household spending decline during the 
     Great Recession. Mian and Sufi (2012) found that losses among 
     jobs catering to the local economy, such as positions in 
     retail and restaurants that we refer to as nontradable sector 
     jobs, were concentrated in counties with high debt levels, 
     where spending dropped sharply during the recession. By 
     contrast, losses among jobs catering to the broader economy, 
     such as manufacturing of durable goods, were spread 
     throughout the country. The authors argue that this indicates 
     that a large decline in household spending, driven by 
     household financial weakness stemming largely from the 
     collapse in house prices, explains a large proportion of 
     Great Recession job losses.
       Does the NFIB survey evidence support this argument? In 
     Figure 2, we show state-level correlations between 2006 
     household debt-to-income ratios and changes in the percentage 
     of businesses citing poor sales as their top concern from 
     2007 to 2009. The percentage of businesses citing poor sales 
     increased more in high-household-leverage states, precisely 
     where the largest spending and employment declines in the 
     nontradable sector occurred. This is consistent with the 
     household spending evidence in Mian, Rao, and Sufi (2012).
       To extend this analysis, we performed a regression, a 
     statistical test of the relationship between state-level job 
     losses in the nontradable sector from 2007 to 2009 and the 
     percentage of businesses in that state citing poor sales. The 
     test showed a significant negative correlation. In other 
     words, states in which businesses cited poor sales also 
     registered disproportionately sharp drops in jobs and 
     household spending. This supports the view that a drop in 
     aggregate demand led to job losses during the recession.


               Regulation and taxes: State-level evidence

       Figure 1 confirms the pattern in Baker, Bloom, and Davis 
     (2013) that small business concerns about regulation and 
     taxes rose after the Great Recession and remained elevated in 
     2012. Can this explain the job market's current weak 
     performance? The state-level NFIB survey responses may help 
     answer this question.
       We focus on the rise from 2008 to 2011 in the percentage of 
     businesses citing regulation or taxes as their primary 
     problem, the period when this concern increased the most. The 
     increase varied significantly from state to state. For 
     example, Rhode Island saw a rise of over 30 percentage 
     points, while New Jersey saw a decrease of almost 10 
     percentage points.
       Figure 3 shows there was almost no correlation between job 
     growth in a state from 2008 to 2011 and the increase in the 
     percentage of businesses citing regulation and taxes as their 
     primary concern. In fact, if anything, the correlation is 
     positive.

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, 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 Georgia 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 part A of House Report 114-2.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 10. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES AND GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553a (as inserted by 
     section 4 of this Act) the following new section:

     ``Sec. 553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance

       ``Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as amended 
     by the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015, and section 
     553a shall not apply in the case of any rule or guidance 
     proposed, issued, or made by the Secretary of

[[Page H264]]

     Homeland Security. Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 
     706, as in effect before the enactment of the Regulatory 
     Accountability Act of 2015, shall apply to such proposed 
     rules, final rules, or guidance, as appropriate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 553 the following new 
     item:

``553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance.' '''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 27, 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. Chair, let me thank the chairman and rise to 
support the Jackson Lee amendment with a little journey down memory 
lane of just a few days ago.
  Just a few days ago in northern Nigeria, a heinous terrorist group by 
the name of Boko Haram killed 2,000 people. Pillaging and killing has 
been their mantra, their definition.
  A few days before that, we watched in horror as three terrorists 
killed 17 people in the nation state of France, our ally for many, 
many, many years--our partner, if you will, in the virtues of liberty 
and democracy.
  My amendment speaks to the diminishing impact that this present 
legislation would have on the security of our Nation. My amendment 
simply asks that those issues dealing with Homeland Security be 
exempted from this rule.
  The rule itself causes there to be some 70 particulars that have to 
be met when rulemaking begins. Can you imagine subjecting national 
security to that kind of criteria?
  As indicated, this bill modifies a Federal regulatory or rulemaking 
process by codifying many requirements included in Presidential 
executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new 
criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule. We 
mentioned that in my earlier discussion.
  My amendment would simply exempt from the bill's congressional 
approval requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  As a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, having 
served previously as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Border 
and Maritime Security, I am concerned about legislation that throws a 
monkey wrench in the footsteps of Customs and Border Protection, Border 
Patrol, ICE, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and many others.
  I am concerned when our Secretary of Homeland Security indicates that 
we live in dangerous times and, therefore, calling upon America not 
just to see something and say something, but to be conscious of these 
dangerous times.
  Can you imagine the necessity of a rulemaking that then must be 
burdened with 70 new levels of criteria defining the budget analysis or 
cost benefit?
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do think we have oversight responsibilities, and 
I do think that we should be responsible in those oversight 
responsibilities and fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible, but 
I do not think that this legislation that has come to us time and time 
again and obviously failed is any answer to what we are trying to do.
  Let me, first of all, say that this bill does not do as the 
Constitution has asked, and that is the ``We, the people of the United 
States, in order to form a more perfect Union'' in the beginning of our 
Constitution.
  This does not adhere to that, and I would ask my colleagues to 
support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I respectfully rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, every member of this body and our constituents 
know that, as we speak, the Department of Homeland Security is in the 
midst of an unprecedented overreach to change this Nation's immigration 
laws through regulation and guidance, bypassing Congress and the will 
of the American people.
  How can we support excluding that very effort from the requirements 
of this good bill? What is more, the amendment seeks to shield the 
Department of Homeland Security--a Department in need of good 
government reform--from all of the good government rulemaking and 
guidance reforms in the bill. We should not do that.
  The bill does not threaten needed regulation in DHS' jurisdiction, 
but simply assures that DHS will avoid unnecessary and overreaching 
regulation and issue smarter, less-costly regulation and guidance when 
necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I want to say to my colleague on Judiciary, 
Ms. Jackson Lee, that this amendment is very important. It exempts any 
rule promulgated by Homeland Security, and as a result of this 
amendment, current law would apply to the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  This is a very perceptive and important part of us moving forward on 
a really critical consideration because H.R. 185 will stall or prevent 
rulemaking, and it is essential that the Department of Homeland 
Security not be encumbered by such burdensome requirements.
  Summary: This amendment exempts any rule promulgated by the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from H.R. 185. As a result of 
this amendment, current law would apply to DHS.
  This amendment is necessary because H.R. 185 will stall or prevent 
rulemaking and it is essential that the DHS not be encumbered by such 
burdensome requirements.
  Effective rulemaking is a critical tool for DHS to be able to protect 
the Nation from acts of terrorism and to help communities recover from 
natural disasters, among many other things.
  For instance, DHS has already proposed several rules to safeguard 
maritime security, as well as a rule proposed by the Coast Guard to 
revise regulations relating to the construction, design, equipment of 
deep-water ports that are used as terminals for importing and exporting 
oil and natural gas. This rule would provide for regulatory 
flexibility, while also preventing another environmental catastrophe 
like Deepwater Horizon.
  DHS has also proposed a series of rules to protect against 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex. 
This rule guarantees the equal treatment of persons in all DHS programs 
under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  These proposed rules clearly demonstrate the need for this amendment, 
which underscores the importance of rulemaking across a wide spectrum 
of concerns.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Sally Katzen, formerly of the Obama and Clinton administration, 
mentioned how valuable regulations can be to helping the American 
people.
  This is an impediment. I don't want to impede a regulatory scheme to 
help with cybersecurity; I don't want to impede the Coast Guard if it 
has intelligence about an attack on the Houston port with some 
regulatory scheme that doesn't allow it to move forward or to be able 
to address that question.
  What we are suggesting is there are obstacles being put in front of 
national security. I ask that you support this amendment by exempting 
the Department of Homeland Security that is entrusted with the 
security, domestic security of the United States of America.
  I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.


            What Does the Regulatory Accountability Act Do?

  This bill modifies the federal rule-making process by codifying many 
requirements included in presidential executive orders and requiring 
agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, 
including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem 
that the rule is meant to address, and potential costs and benefits of 
the proposal and alternatives.
  In addition, the measure creates statutory thresholds for regulations 
to be deemed ``major'' rules and ``high impact'' rules--i.e., rules 
likely to cost more than $100 million or $1 billion a year--and 
requires that these rules proposals be subject to additional criteria 
and procedural steps.


                      What Does the Amendment Do?

  My amendment would exempt from the bill's Congressional approval 
requirement any rule

[[Page H265]]

promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security.
  As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the 
Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about 
any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's 
ability to respond to emergencies.
  The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and 
complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second-
guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal 
challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and 
delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health 
and safety of millions of Americans at risk.
  The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to 
be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when 
the safety and security of the American people are at risk.
  According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, 
public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly 
impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last 
several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly 
outweighed their costs.
  In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top 
priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies 
foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to 
protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat 
landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.
  Professor Sally Katzen, a former Obama and Clinton Administration 
official, discussed the benefits of regulation which an agency like the 
Department of Homeland Security demonstrates, and that is brought home 
by the tragic events in Nigeria and France, where terrorists struck 
with horrible efficiency last week. Professor Katzen stated:

       Moreover, while we hear a lot about the costs of 
     regulation, we rarely hear about the benefits of regulation--
     for example, improving our health or the air we breathe or 
     the water we drink protecting our safety in our homes, our 
     automobiles, or our workplaces; or increasing the efficiency 
     of our markets.
       Those who embrace cost/benefit analysis should speak to the 
     benefits as well as the costs of regulation. Here, there are 
     data--incomplete as they may be--which clearly show that the 
     benefits of rules issued during the Obama Administration have 
     been substantially greater than the costs of those rules. For 
     example, the 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and 
     Costs of Federal Regulations showed that for FY2011 (the most 
     recent fiscal year for which data are available), the rules 
     ``were estimated to result in a total of $34.3 billion to 
     $89.5 billion in annual benefits and $5.0 billion to $10.1 
     billion in annual costs.

  And make no mistake about Mr. Chair, the Department of Homeland 
Security is tasked with a wide variety of duties under its mission. One 
example of an instance where DHS may have to act quickly to establish 
new or emergency regulations is the protection of our cyber security, 
an issue that should be at the forefront of everyone's legislative 
agenda in this new Congress.
  In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically. 
The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating 
disruption of the operation of information systems for critical 
infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and 
national security of the United States.
  We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to 
reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be 
exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our 
Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that 
such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration, 
manageable, and cause the least possible damage.
  According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number 
of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to USCERT has increased 
dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber incidents 
reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY 2009 (over a 
400% increase).
  The Department of Homeland Security is also tasked with combating 
terrorism, and protecting Americans from threats. With the current 
unrest in the Middle East, why would we want to limit DHS's ability to 
do its job?
  The Department of Homeland Security is constantly responding to new 
intelligence and threats from the volatile Middle East and around the 
globe. We must not tie the hands of those trusted to protect us from 
these threats.
  Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations 
puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th 
District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. 
Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is one of the 
busiest.
  More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston 
in 2011, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for 
the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports 
in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of 
Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along 
our nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the 
direction of DHS.
  Simply put, if Coast Guard Intelligence has evidence of a potential 
attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland 
Security to be able to protect my constituents by issuing the 
regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this 
bill.
  The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only 
because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new 
information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency 
preparedness and response.
  There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted 
with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is 
important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with 
hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist 
attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a 
nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.
  On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United 
States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: 
terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.
  Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. 
Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the 
interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as 
operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private 
sector.
  We cannot hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to 
protect the safety and security of the American people. No mission is 
more sacrosanct--and by bottling up the process with bureaucratic red 
tape.
  As Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said recently:

       Recent world events call for increased vigilance in 
     homeland security.

  H.R. 185 makes it much harder for agencies to issue guidance, thus 
leading to unnecessary regulatory uncertainty and undue delay--
something that the American people can ill-afford. We cannot hamstring 
the Department when it is trying to cope with threats such as franchise 
terrorism. My amendment frees up Homeland Security to do its critical 
mission of protecting the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment 
in order to ensure that lifesaving regulations promulgated by the 
Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this 
legislation.
  This GOP Bill Is Opposed by A Long List of National Organizations. 
National organizations opposing the bill include such organizations as 
the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which itself is a coalition of 
more than 70 consumer, environmental, health and public interest 
groups:
  Consumer Federation of America;
  Consumers Union;
  Americans for Financial Reform;
  Better Markets
  Center for Responsible Lending
  American Association for Justice
  Center for Effective Government;
  Public Citizen
  U.S. PIRG
  AFL-CIO
  AFSCME
  UAW
  United Steelworkers
  Union of Concerned Scientists and
  Natural Resources Defense Council.
  Coalition for Sensible Safeguards Strongly Opposing the Bill: In its 
letter strongly opposing the bill, the Coalition for Sensible 
Safeguards points out, ``[The bill] would undermine our public 
protections and jeopardize public health by threatening the safeguards 
that ensure our access to clean air and water, safe workplaces, 
untainted food and drugs, and safe toys and consumer goods. . . . The 
costs of deregulation should be obvious by now: the Wall Street 
economic collapse the Upper Big Branch mine explosion in West Virginia, 
various food and product safety recalls, and numerous environmental 
disasters including the recent Dan River coal ash spill in North 
Carolina and the Freedom Industries chemical spill in West Virginia 
demonstrate the need for a regulatory system that protects the public, 
not corporate interests.''
  Americans for Financial Reform Strongly Opposing the Bill: In its 
letter strongly opposing the bill, Americans for Financial Reform 
points out, ``This legislation could instead be called the `End Wall 
Street Accountability Act of 2015,' since this would be one of its 
major effects. This legislation would require the agencies charged with 
oversight of our largest banks and most critical financial markets to 
comply with a host of additional bureaucratic and procedural 
requirements designed to make effective action virtually impossible. By

[[Page H266]]

doing so it would tilt the playing field still further in the direction 
of powerful Wall Street banks, and against the public interest. It 
would paralyze the ability of regulators to protect consumers from 
financial exploitation and prevent another catastrophic financial 
crisis.''
  Consumer Federation of America Strongly Opposing the Bill: In its 
letter strongly opposing the bill, the Consumer Federation of America 
points out, ``The Regulatory Accountability Act would handcuff all 
federal agencies in their efforts to protect consumers. . . . 
Specifically, the RAA would require all agencies . . . to adopt the 
least costly rule, without consideration of the impact on public health 
and safety, or the impact on the financial marketplace. As such, the 
RAA would override important bipartisan laws that have been in effect 
for years, as well as more recently enacted laws to protect consumers 
from unfair and deceptive financial services, unsafe food and unsafe 
consumer products.''
  Natural Resources Defense Council Strongly Opposing the Bill: In its 
letter strongly opposing the bill, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council points out, ``This is a bill that is designed to prevent the 
regulatory system from working, not to improve its operation. The 
practical impact of H.R. 185 would be to make it difficult if not 
impossible to put in place any new safeguards for the public, no matter 
what the issue. . . . The RAA's purpose is abundantly clear. It is an 
effort to amend and weaken existing law and future statutes by 
overlaying a suffocating blanket of unnecessary process. The result 
will be fewer needed safeguards despite public support for protection 
and study and study showing that the benefits of regulation have far 
outweighed the costs.''
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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. Chair, 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.

                              {time}  1615


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 114-2.
  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:

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 10. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES AND GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553a (as inserted by 
     section 4 of this Act) the following new section:

     ``Sec. 553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance

       ``Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as amended 
     by the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015, and section 
     553a shall not apply in the case of a rule or guidance 
     proposed, made, or issued which relates to health or public 
     safety. Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as in 
     effect before the enactment of the Regulatory Accountability 
     Act of 2015, shall apply to such proposed rules, final rules, 
     or guidance, as appropriate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 553 the following new 
     item:

``553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance.' '''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 27, 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, as someone who comes from local 
government, I was encouraged last week to hear the Speaker call for us 
to find common ground. I know firsthand the music that can be made when 
elected officials allow their commitments to improving the quality of 
life for our neighbors to guide their actions rather than partisan 
ideology.
  Sadly, we are only 2 weeks into the new Congress, and the House 
majority has brought to the floor a string of divisive bills. Last week 
we debated without amendment a plan to bypass the normal review process 
to expedite approval of the Keystone pipeline for the 10th time, and 
today we consider a repeat of anti-public health and safety legislation 
that was debated and defeated in the 112th and 113th Congresses.
  The seductively titled Regulatory Accountability Act would actually 
effectively block new Federal regulation and is nothing more than a 
backdoor attempt to roll back important public health and safety 
protections. What is more, my friends on the other side claim they want 
to reduce regulatory burdens, but their bill adds more than 70 new 
analytical steps to the final rulemaking process while jeopardizing 
science-based methodology.
  The Union of Concerned Scientists warns that if this bill becomes 
law, Mr. Chairman, agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Food and Drug Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission would all be subject to more special interest interference, 
would be much more vulnerable to legal challenges, and even if those 
challenges are crucial to protecting our air and water and safeguarding 
public health, they could prevail. That is why I offer what should be, 
I hope, a simple amendment to exempt any rule or guidance pertaining to 
public health or safety.
  This bill directs agencies to adopt the least costly regulatory 
action, notwithstanding any other provision of law, meaning that the 
benefits of safeguards to protect the air we breathe, the water we 
drink, and the food we eat would be considered secondary to the cost of 
those safeguards, even if the benefits exceed the costs.
  My friends falsely claim that regulations impose unreasonable costs 
on the economy and industry. The facts don't justify that rhetoric. 
OMB's latest report to Congress on Federal regulation found the 
monetized benefits of Federal regulations over the past decade alone 
are significantly higher by a factor of 10 than the costs. But why let 
facts trump belief?
  An American Lung Association survey found that three out of four 
respondents feel we should not have to choose between protecting health 
and safety and promoting the economy. They understand we must and can 
do both.
  Mr. Chairman, I am curious if my friends on the other side have asked 
their constituents what they think. For example, I wonder if the 
residents near North Carolina coal ash spills--which is affecting 
drinking water there and in my home State of Virginia--share the same 
disdain for water quality regulation. Maybe we should ask the millions 
of parents who own a child car seat subject to a nationwide recall if 
they would feel better with less rigorous safety standards for their 
children.
  My friends continue to perpetuate this notion that government 
regulation is a heavy boot on the throat of business, but a poll 
conducted by the American Sustainable Business Council found 78 percent 
of employers believe responsible regulation is important for protecting 
small businesses from unfair competition and leveling the playing 
field.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman on his 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment would exempt from H.R. 185 all rules or 
guidance that relate to health or public safety, including food safety, 
workplace safety, consumer product safety, air quality, or water 
quality. Existing APA procedures would continue to apply to these types 
of rules.
  The amendment highlights the real-world consequences of H.R. 185, 
which would be to stifle agencies' ability to promulgate rules that 
protect public health and safety.
  Among other things, H.R. 185 requires agencies to perform cumbersome 
and lengthy cost-benefit analyses of all rules. Worst of all, it would 
override substantive provisions of numerous statutes, including the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act, that prohibit or limit agencies from considering cost.
  For instance, the Food and Drug Administration has begun proposing 
rules and guidance under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), 
which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 
2011, representing the most substantial reform to food safety in over 
70 years.

[[Page H267]]

  In November 2014, the FDA proposed rules to implement this Act to 
prevent foodborne illness outbreaks associated with contaminated 
produce, among other things.
  According to the Center for Disease Control, one in six Americans get 
sick every year from foodborne diseases, affecting about 48 million 
people yearly. Of these, 3,000 people die every year from these 
diseases, which are largely preventable.
  Without this amendment, H.R. 185 would drown the FDA in additional 
requirements prior to issuing new rules to protect Americans from the 
contamination of produce and other rules that are critical to keeping 
the U.S. food supply safe.
  The cumulative effect of these and the other changes wrought by H.R. 
185 would be to substantially undermine agencies' ability to 
effectively regulate consumer health and product safety, environmental 
protection, workplace safety, and financial services industry 
misconduct, among other critical concerns, while doing little to help 
small businesses shape or comply with federal regulations.
  Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) regularly has reported to Congress that the 
benefits of regulations far exceed their costs.
  Effective rulemaking is a critical tool for agencies to protect the 
public health and safety, from clean air and water to emergency 
transportation rules designed to keep Americans safe while traveling 
abroad.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an important step to protecting public 
health and safety. It will ensure the lifesaving benefits of protecting 
air quality, water quality, and food safety so that they are not 
automatically ruled out because of the cost alone. It will ensure, for 
example, that the CFPB can proceed with Dodd-Frank regulations 
protecting Americans from risky practices that led to the financial 
crisis and save lives by allowing the FDA to continue implementing 
provisions of the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
protect the public health and safety of our communities.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Virginia.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any 
rule or guidance pertaining to health or public safety. Health and 
public safety regulation done properly serve important goals, and the 
bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those 
goals.
  But Federal health and public safety regulation constitutes an 
immense part of total Federal regulation and has been the source of 
many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and job-and-wage 
destroying regulations. To remove these areas of regulation from the 
bill would be to severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower 
the crushing cumulative costs of Federal regulation.
  Consider, for example, testimony before the Judiciary Committee last 
term by Rob James, a city councilman from Avon Lake, Ohio, about the 
impacts of new and excessive regulation on his town, its workers, and 
its families.
  Avon Lake is a small town facing devastation by ideologically driven, 
antifossil-fuel power plant regulations. These regulations are expected 
to destroy jobs in Avon Lake, harm Avon Lake's families, and make it 
even harder for Avon Lake to find the resources to provide emergency 
services, quality schools, and help for its neediest citizens--all 
while doing comparatively little to control mercury emissions that are 
the stated target of the regulations.
  Let me point out to the gentleman and anyone else concerned that 
health and safety regulations are a tantamount concern of this 
legislation. In fact, I will quote from page 19 of the bill:
  The agency shall adopt a rule only on the basis of the best 
reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other 
evidence and information concerning the need for, consequences of, and 
alternatives to the rule.
  I will also point out that the American Council of Independent 
Laboratories supports this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  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.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
114-2 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  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. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes 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 254, 
noes 168, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 23]

                               AYES--254

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott

[[Page H268]]


     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--168

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cleaver
     Costa
     Duckworth
     Garamendi
     Guthrie
     Nunnelee
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Roskam
     Ryan (OH)
     Titus


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 13, 2015, on page H268, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--10 Cleaver Costa Duckworth Garamendi Guthrie Pearce 
Perlmutter Roskam Ryan (OH) Titus
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--11 
Cleaver Costa Duckworth Garamendi Guthrie Nunnelee Pearce 
Perlmutter Roskam Ryan (OH) Titus


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                              {time}  1649

  Messrs. DUNCAN of Tennessee, FARENTHOLD, and DELANEY changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) 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 178, 
noes 247, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 24]

                               AYES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--247

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cleaver
     Cole
     Duckworth
     Garamendi
     Huelskamp
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Ryan (OH)


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 13, 2015, on page H268, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--7 Cleaver Cole Duckworth Garamendi Huelskamp Perlmutter 
Ryan (OH)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--8 
Cleaver Cole Duckworth Garamendi Huelskamp Nunnelee Perlmutter 
Ryan (OH)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1656

  Mrs. DINGELL and Ms. DeGETTE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  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.

[[Page H269]]

                             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 176, 
noes 249, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 25]

                               AYES--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--249

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cleaver
     Duckworth
     Garamendi
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Perlmutter
     Rouzer
     Ryan (OH)


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 13, 2015, on page H269, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--7 Cleaver Duckworth Garamendi Olson Perlmutter Rouzer Ryan 
(OH)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--8 
Cleaver Duckworth Garamendi Nunnelee Olson Perlmutter Rouzer Ryan 
(OH)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1700

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 25 I was unavoidably detained 
during the time of this vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''


                Amendment No. 4 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 178, 
noes 248, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 26]

                               AYES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher

[[Page H270]]


     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cleaver
     Duckworth
     Garamendi
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (OH)


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 13, 2015, on page H270, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--6 Cleaver Duckworth Garamendi Perlmutter Rohrabacher Ryan 
(OH)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--7 
Cleaver Duckworth Garamendi Nunnelee Perlmutter Rohrabacher Ryan 
(OH)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1705

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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. 185) to 
reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze and formulate new 
regulations and guidance documents, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
27, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Miss RICE of New York. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Miss Rice of New York moves to recommit the bill H.R. 185 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SECTION __. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM TERRORIST ATTACKS.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     apply to rules or guidance that--
       (1) prevent terrorism and crime;
       (2) protect the wages of workers, including pay equity for 
     women;
       (3) save tax dollars or provide refunds and rebates for 
     taxpayers;
       (4) provide assistance and regulatory relief to small 
     businesses; or
       (5) prevent discrimination based on race, religion, 
     national origin, or any other protected category.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  Like many of you, especially my fellow freshman Members, I told my 
constituents of New York City's Fourth Congressional District that I 
wanted to come to Washington to offer commonsense solutions.
  As you heard, the amendment does important things that my friends on 
the other side of the aisle also find important, such as saving tax 
dollars and providing regulatory relief for small businesses. The 
amendment also ensures that H.R. 185 would not stymie protections of 
workers' wages, especially those of women, or weaken protections 
against workplace discrimination. But the most important provision in 
this amendment, in light of current events, would ensure that H.R. 185 
won't apply to actions that prevent terrorism and crime.
  As the former District Attorney of Nassau County, just outside of New 
York City, terrorism is not abstract for me and my constituents. It is 
very real and it is very personal. Thousands of Long Island residents 
commute to the city every single day. We all remember too clearly the 
September 11 attacks, and we all live with the reality that such a day 
could come again if we are not vigilant in our efforts to prevent 
terrorism.
  The horrendous attacks in France last week serve as a tragic and 
chilling reminder that we must be on high alert here at home, and the 
best way to do that is to ensure that those who protect us have the 
resources they need to do their jobs. That is our job--to make sure 
they have the resources they need to do theirs.
  Mr. Speaker, I will make one final point. A number of freshman 
Members, myself included, came to Congress with a mandate to find 
compromise and to govern. Passing H.R. 185 will not demonstrate such 
priorities. We should be working together to actually solve problems. 
We should be working to find new ideas and new solutions to our 
Nation's problems and creating legislation that will make our 
government work more effectively.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we are more than 6 years into the Obama 
administration. Real unemployment is still a massive problem in this 
country. America's labor force participation has dropped to record 
lows. The nominal unemployment rate is down, but that is because 
desperate Americans dying for work are abandoning the workforce in 
droves.
  The only real, long-term solution is to restart the engines of 
economic growth in this country. One way to do that is to pass the 
Regulatory Accountability Act. This bill promises real relief from our 
$1.86 trillion-per-year regulatory cost nightmare. If enacted, it would 
change night to day in terms of the level of regulatory costs 
Washington imposes on American families--without stopping one needed 
regulation from being issued.
  My friends across the aisle say that won't happen. They say the bill 
will bring all good rulemaking to a halt. My goodness, it is ObamaCare 
all over again. My friends across the aisle haven't read the bill. You 
have to read the bill to know what is in it. If you read the bill, you 
understand it. You see right there on page 27:

       The agency shall adopt the least costly rule considered 
     during the rule making . . . that meets relevant statutory 
     objectives.

  Take away a few key words and what does that say?

       The agency shall adopt the . . . rule . . . that meets . . 
     . statutory objectives.

  So the rules will still be made and statutory goals will still be 
met, but they will be done in a cost-effective way that makes sure that 
all of the necessary cost-saving measures and all of the necessary 
considerations are taken into account before imposing new burdens on 
the American people.

[[Page H271]]

                              {time}  1715

  Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this good, job-
creating, dollar-saving bill for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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

  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 245, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               AYES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Collins (GA)
     Duckworth
     Garamendi
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Ryan (OH)


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 13, 2015, on page H271, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--7 Cleaver Clyburn Collins (GA) Duckworth Garamendi 
Perlmutter Ryan (OH)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--8 
Cleaver Clyburn Collins (GA) Duckworth Garamendi Nunnelee 
Perlmutter Ryan (OH)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                              {time}  1721

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 175, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 28]

                               AYES--250

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner

[[Page H272]]


     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Duckworth
     Garamendi
     Gowdy
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Ryan (OH)


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 13, 2015, on page H272, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--7 Barton Cleaver Duckworth Garamendi Gowdy Perlmutter Ryan 
(OH)
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: NOT VOTING--8 
Barton Cleaver Duckworth Garamendi Gowdy Nunnelee Perlmutter Ryan 
(OH)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1729

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

                          ____________________