[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.
____________________