Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 19 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H766-H772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 527, SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY
FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 50, UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 78 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H767]]

H. Res. 78

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 527) to amend chapter 6 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly known as the Regulatory Flexibility
Act), to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on
small entities of rules, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Small Business. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 114-3. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
50) to provide for additional safeguards with respect to
imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
114-4, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and
in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in part C of
the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 78 provides for a structured
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act, and H.R. 527, the Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
Mr. Speaker, every year bureaucrats in Washington impose thousands of
regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. Those
mandates can be costly, stretching city and State budgets and making it
harder for American businesses to hire.
The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, H.R. 50, will
ensure that the people who write these regulations in Washington know
exactly what they are asking the American people to pay and whether the
cost of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet
payroll and stay afloat.
H.R. 50 will force Washington to think carefully about regulatory
costs before it passes them on to Americans. This bill is about
transparency and accountability and is something Democrats and
Republicans can all support.
In 1995, Congress passed the bipartisan Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,
UMRA, legislation designed to prevent the Federal Government from
imposing unfunded mandates onto State and local governments or private
businesses without policymakers or the public knowing the cost of such
policies.
UMRA's main objective was to force the Federal Government to estimate
how much unfunded mandates would cost local governments and businesses
and rein in out-of-control mandates. UMRA ensured public awareness of
the crushing financial burden of Federal mandates on employers and
State and local governments. However, UMRA has not been amended since
1995, and some subtle changes are needed to preserve and improve on the
Act's initial purposes.

{time} 1245

UMRA was a good bill, but over time, some shortcomings became
apparent such that the Clinton and, later, Obama administrations issued
executive orders to fix the loopholes within it.
H.R. 50 has bipartisan DNA, Mr. Speaker. It codifies those
administrative fixes championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and
promotes good government, accountability, and transparency.
As a testament to this fact, the bill is cosponsored by two of my
Democratic colleagues here in the House, Representatives Collin
Peterson and Loretta Sanchez. I owe them a debt of gratitude for their
efforts in promoting this commonsense bill.
The text of H.R. 50 has passed the House on a bipartisan basis three
times in the 112th and 113th Congresses. The bill most recently was
favorably reported by the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee.
A common refrain in this business is that ``nobody wants to see how
the sausage is made,'' meaning that the process of drafting and passing
legislation is so ugly that it would repulse people. In this case, I
disagree.
I am extremely proud of this bill, and I am proud of the process by
which it has been advanced in the House. I have had the pleasure of
working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure,
and I appreciate their support and counsel.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was a model for
bipartisanship, and my hope is that this bill leaves a similar legacy.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of this aisle to support the
rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, Dr. Foxx, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I also express through you my wishes for her recovery, and I also
appreciate her patriotism in doing her duty to God and country here
today despite her respiratory duress. I hope that goes

[[Page H768]]

noted, that she is doing a great job representing her party on this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bills, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act and the
Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
The titles of these bills, while lengthy, seem to suggest that
somehow these efforts are designed to increase transparency or help
small business. Their actual impact is quite frankly the opposite.
By allowing rules to be written behind closed doors by big businesses
and effectively preventing Federal agencies from promoting the national
interests as they are supposed to and adding additional bureaucratic
red tape and paperwork, these bills represent an assault on the health
and safety of our Nation's families and threaten to drown our
government in mountains and mountains of unnecessary paperwork.
I think that the release of the President's budget this week shows a
contrast between the priorities of both parties' agendas. The
President's budget focused on Main Street, offering new ideas for how
we can meet the infrastructure needs of our country and reform our
corporate tax system to make American businesses more competitive.
Unfortunately, what we continue to see here in this body from the
Republicans is a ``Groundhog Day'' scenario where every day, every
week--it is like the movie--we are talking about the same thing over
and over again.
We have acted on repealing the Affordable Care Act 56 times in this
body. Here, we are back with another set of bills that echo other bills
again and again and again.
Now, I understand why many people want to do this once and go through
it. People ran on repealing ObamaCare, and people ran on passing these
bills. Once they are done, we will see what the other body does.
But to keep coming back, rather than dealing with the critical
national priorities, I think simply shows a detachment from reality.
That is one of the reasons the public holds this body in such low
regard.
The bill that we considered 2 weeks ago added 65 new analytical
requirements to the process of rulemaking--more red tape, more hurdles.
I think what we are seeing here today is maybe that is not enough red
tape. We are now looking at bills that allow big business to weigh in
before the public, creating even more hurdles before regulations become
public and are implemented.
H.R. 50 would effectively require agencies to consult with the
private sector before the public is even made aware of the bill, let
alone engaged in the rulemaking. This blocks transparency and handicaps
public input.
I agree we want to make sure that business has the opportunity to
weigh in, but we want to make sure that every stakeholder in a
rulemaking process has the opportunity to weigh in equally.
In my State of Colorado, I would be concerned about the erosion of
our protection of our great natural areas like Rocky Mountain National
Park which is a protected site. We celebrated its 100th anniversary as
a national park just last week.
In those 100 years, the Rocky Mountains have been thriving. If you
visit the park today, you can find streams, elk, bighorn sheep, and
fields of wildflowers; but if we hadn't designated the park a national
treasure and created a comprehensive management plan for its
protection, we might very well have lost not only something that
relates to our national pride and is beautiful but, frankly, is the
economic driver in Estes Park and Grand County for much of the economic
activity in and around the National Park.
H.R. 50 would threaten the ability of the National Park Service to
create the kind of management plan that the economy has thrived under
in my home State of Colorado and in my district. It would essentially
create a veto power for legislators and interests that don't believe in
the protection of public lands or are willing to threaten the health of
our families for enhancement of their bottom line. There is always
going to be somebody that objects.
Again, we have a thriving tourism economy relating to Rocky Mountain
National Park, but I am sure there is some company somewhere that would
have some interest that is countervailing to the interests of job
creation in our community, and that is why we need to have a
transparent and accessible process of listening to stakeholders in as
expeditious a way as possible.
We need a system that allows the Fort Collins native who hikes
through the Rockies every weekend or the New Yorker who visits the
snowcapped mountains every spring the ability to participate in
protecting those natural resources and the protection of our public
health.
We need to listen to the small businesses, the hospitality sector,
and the restaurants and lodges that serve our tourism communities, but
by allowing an unfair advantage to out-of-State corporate interests, we
threaten the very principle that makes us American, the ability to
participate in our decisions of government at the level closest to
where we are affected.
H.R. 50 is a dangerous precedent for policy. It allows additional red
tape to be thrown at government agencies, representing unnecessary
delays and costs that prevent us from creating jobs and growing our
economy.
We need to move forward with a middle class agenda for our country
rather than continuing to live in this Groundhog Day scenario of
repetitious bills that don't discuss how to grow our economy or grow
the middle class.
Yesterday, this body attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for
the 56th time. Today, the Republicans are making two attempts at what I
consider to be a very similar thing, damage the regulatory process at
all costs, which we already did and we are doing again.
They want to see additional red tape and bureaucracy added--whether
it is clean air, whether it is clean water, whether it is consumers,
whether it is protecting our children--regardless of the particular
area with which we operate.
Instead of having a cumulative look at regulations, we should have a
look at cumulative impacts of all the legislation that has been brought
before this body and how that impacts small businesses and regulations.
Earlier this year, the House passed the Regulatory Accountability
Act. That bill alone added 65 new checkpoints to the regulatory
process. This bill would prevent transparency and allow big business to
weigh in on regulations--before small businesses, before consumers,
before other stakeholders--and add an additional tier and red tape to
the regulatory process.
We need to move forward with improving our regulatory structure. I
don't think there is any disagreement about that. Some of that can be
done through executive action and some in a collaborative, bipartisan
way to streamline the regulatory process to reduce hurdles for small
businesses while meeting the goals of protecting the American public.
Unfortunately, these bills do neither of those.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying
bills.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for his kind comments
about me and my health. I appreciate all condolences.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution also provides for consideration of H.R.
527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of
2015, which is important legislation to improve the Federal
Government's treatment of small businesses.
Ensuring we are providing the best environment possible to small
businesses is vital to support a sector which employs nearly half of
America's private sector workers and generates 63 percent of new
private sector jobs.
As a former owner of a nursery, I know well the joys and trials of
running a small business, and I am pleased that the House is
considering these vital provisions.
Small businesses do not have the staff or background to identify and
comply with ever-growing piles of red tape. Federal regulations
disproportionately impact small businesses which led Congress to enact
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to account better
for

[[Page H769]]

the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small
entities and to tailor regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these
entities.
Unsurprisingly, agencies have failed to comply with these
requirements in full. They have taken advantage of loopholes, failed to
acknowledge the entirety of impacts for proposed rules, and issued
rules that continue to harm small businesses. That failure necessitates
our actions this week to consider H.R. 527, the Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
This legislation requires Federal agencies to consider the potential
``economic impact'' of proposed rules on small businesses and
nonprofits. It also mandates a 10-year plan to review all rules
determined to have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.''
That will ensure past regulations will not remain on the books
unexamined and able to burden small businesses for decades.
The legislation also expands ``regulatory flexibility analysis''
requirements which are currently used to explain the reasoning behind a
proposed rule, identify duplicative rules, and explain any
recordkeeping or other requirements that may be imposed on small
businesses or other small entities.
It also requires the Small Business Administration's chief counsel
for advocacy to develop interagency rules for conducting flexibility
analyses.
These changes will ensure that future regulations are tailored to
minimize their impact on small businesses. This will allow small
businesses to spend more of their investments and time hiring new
employees and growing their businesses rather than complying with
unnecessary burdens from Federal regulations.
H.R. 527 is a simple, commonsense mandate for the executive branch to
work together with small businesses and design smarter, less burdensome
rules that work for the American people, and I commend it to my
colleagues for their support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of
legislation that would help veterans make it in America by establishing
a pilot program to encourage the hiring of veterans in manufacturing
jobs.
To discuss our thoughtful proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a leader on veterans issues.
Ms. DelBENE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so that we can consider my proposal to boost education and job
training for our veterans.
Everyone in this Chamber can agree that we have an obligation to care
for those who risk their lives and make sacrifices for our freedoms.
Unfortunately, there are too many veterans struggling to find work
today, and we are not doing enough to help. Last year, the unemployment
rate for post-9/11 veterans stood at more than 7 percent, substantially
higher than the national rate; and across all age groups, there were
more than 500,000 veterans out of work in 2014.
This is unacceptable. Congress must do more to meet its commitment to
these brave men and women. That is why I encourage my colleagues to
join me and more than 40 of my colleagues in supporting the
Manufacturing Jobs for Veterans Act.
My bill will establish State-based manufacturing employment programs
to provide skills training in manufacturing jobs for veterans and
servicemembers who are reentering the workforce.
These pilot programs would support on-the-job training opportunities,
apprenticeships, and certification classes for unemployed veterans; and
it will encourage manufacturers to recruit, hire, and train our
Nation's heroes.
With as many as 600,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs, we have an
opportunity to connect employers with a pipeline of skilled, capable
workers.

{time} 1300

Instead of voting on yet another partisan bill, we should be focused
on real solutions that help the American people, grow our economy, and
strengthen the middle class. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so we can take up this important bill and put our
veterans back to work.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I thank
my good friend from North Carolina, who, as has already been stated on
the floor, is powering through today, standing strong for the values
that I think really would not be expressed any differently except to
say, Mr. Speaker, that there is critical national interest here.
There is probably today, on the floor, as we talk about these bills--
and yes, it is sort of a Groundhog Day, and I will get to that in a
moment, because it seems like every time we, from the Republican side
of the aisle, want to talk about jobs and kitchen tables and making
better improvements for life and getting rid of regulatory burdens that
would help or putting controls on government, we are accused of wanting
to spoil the environment, kill trees, make flowers not bloom, I mean,
whatever it may be, but the issue, that is Groundhog Day.
So if people want a true Groundhog Day analogy, here is the Groundhog
Day analogy. The analogy is, when we want to put constraints on
government from interfering and getting in the way of its proper role
of helping business and helping our country do what it is supposed to
do, or we are wanting to control, through government, this process and
do so in a way that is detrimental to those moms and dads who get up
every day and families and single moms and grandparents and aunts and
uncles, all these folks who just simply say, we are not really as
overly concerned about what you are doing in Washington, D.C., as I am
concerned about what you are doing in Hometown, USA, where I get up
every morning.
It has been said many times, Mr. Speaker, already this afternoon, and
the issue is, we are putting more burden and red tape on America.
No. What this bill does--and these two bills that I speak in favor of
in this rule, these two bills that we are doing, H.R. 50 and H.R. 527--
is actually controlling government. Instead of letting it get in the
way and put unnecessary or quicker burdens on those again, we are
simply saying, Whoa. There is a proper place. There is a proper place
for regulation. There is a proper place for a limited government role
that our Founders made.
However, when that role steps over and begins to not only burden
business but instead the man or woman who wants to get up in the
morning and chase a dream of starting a new business, as I once did,
when we started a scrapbook store, you know, just to get a little bit
of money, we were able to do so.
But others who want to go get a loan, they have to go through the
bureaucratic red tape that is now keeping them from starting the small
business jobs that employ people on a day-to-day level. We are simply
saying, Government, it is time to take a breath. It is time to step
back and see the impact that you are having.
Granted, some regulation is good. I will give that to my Democratic
colleagues. But overregulation and burdensome regulation tears down our
economy.
So if that is the Groundhog Day argument for this week we want to
have, I will have it every day of the week. The Members and people who
watch this floor can see you have a party that wants to restrict
business and jobs and government in such a way that it throttles the
economy or a party which is putting forth solutions and will put
forward as many times as we have to to remind the American people that
it is people and small business and jobs, the everyday Americans who
create the jobs in this country, not government.
A business owner that I just recently spoke to had 10 employees, and
he said he was getting ready to hire another employee. I said, Well,
great. That is great. 10 percent growth. One more employee.
He said, But you have got to understand. I am having to hire
somebody, and all they are going to be doing is filling out government
paperwork.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is not someone who can go out and
sell

[[Page H770]]

their widget or perform their service. This is someone who will sit in
an office and simply make sure that they are complying with the Big
Brother overreach of government. That is not job creation. That is
burdensome on business.
Let's get them where they can create jobs and go out and sell their
product, do their services.
We have a bank in my area. You are talking about unfunded mandates,
regulatory rulemaking. A bank in my area, on their regular regulatory
inspection, they were waiting for the bank examiners to come, the folks
to come in and do their audit.
The problem they had was this: when the government showed up, they
had more people coming to inspect their books than they had employed in
their main office. And the government agency complained that they did
not have enough room for them to do their job.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It is not up to small business to make sure
government can do its job. It is up to government to provide the
atmosphere so small business can do its job, and that is what we are
here about today.
So when we look at this, I urge my colleagues, don't get sidetracked
on other issues. Look at it for what it is. It is government getting
the constraint, not the American people. It is protecting the American
people from not good legislation, good litigation. It is the stuff that
we need to work on.
So, Mr. Speaker, I state these are good bills. Let's state it
clearly. Groundhog Day is exactly what it is: for government, or let's
let the people live.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our colleague from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the
gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding this time and for her good
work on this legislation.
I came to the floor today just to tell you a little bit about why I
think this legislation is so very important.
When I first came to Congress many years ago, we had a Democratic
Governor of Tennessee, Ned Ray McWherter, and he was a fine Governor.
He would have the Tennessee congressional delegation to the Governor's
mansion once a year. And he would always start those meetings off--
every single year he would say: Please, no more unfunded mandates.
Please, no more unfunded mandates.
He said that most of what the State was having to do now were things
that were required by the Federal Government, and it was causing the
States great financial difficulties, and it was turning what was
supposed to be a Federal system that our Founding Fathers envisioned,
it was turning it totally upside down.
This bill is a very reasonable, moderate, commonsense effort to make
good on the original Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. All it is
trying to do is ensure that Congress and Federal agencies are fully
informed about the impact of these Federal mandates.
I urge my colleagues to support this very fine effort to make our
system better.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
When you hear the gentleman from Georgia or the gentlewoman from
North Carolina talk about the intent behind these bills, they sound
great. We all want a streamlined regulatory process and to help make it
more efficient.
Unfortunately, when you look at what these bills do, they do the
opposite. They add another tier to regulation, with Big Business having
a new say in and above what small businesses and community members can
do. They add red tape and legal requirements to regulation that don't
exist now under statute.
It, again, seems to me like the opposite of trying to get input so
our regulations best affect the needs of each community, and we have
diverse needs across this country.
My district is 62 percent Federal land, so when decisions are made on
Federal land, like a travel management plan, and on where people can
bike and where they can hunt and fish, we want to have our say. The
last thing we want is some out-of-state corporate interest determining
in some process before we even get our say on how these Federal lands
are used.
It is absolutely critical that we empower our communities, and this
bill does the opposite in the name of adding more bureaucracy and red
tape to the regulatory process, presumably, in an attempt to delay or
make it less effective than it is.
Now, we value, as Americans, the work that the Clean Water Act does,
the Clean Air Act, the EPA, our essential protections around public
health. They are very, very important. And I think our colleagues agree
that they don't want to take those on head on.
But this bill would prevent some of those very agencies from doing
the work that we have charged them to do, keeping our air clean, our
water clean, and they need to be able to do that work and involve local
impact in making sure that they do it in a way that protects American
health and helps grow our economy and create jobs.
We need to make sure that we don't have dumping of industrial waste
in the Colorado River, poisoning millions of recreational users. We
want to make sure that drilling sites don't use chemical compounds that
are toxic or cause birth defects.
We can and we must do better. The march of science moves forward. If
there are thoughtful improvements to the regulatory process that will
help reduce costs and reduce red tape, rather than add red tape, we are
happy to have those discussions. But, unfortunately, these bills fall
short of that mark. That is why I oppose the rule and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Amodei). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. My colleague, Ms. DelBene, has offered a concept around a
pilot program to encourage the hiring of veterans in manufacturing
jobs, the type of middle class agenda that the American public wants
this Congress to work on, rather than one that cuts them out of the
very rulemaking that is designed to protect us Americans from our
health hazards and protect our public lands.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' defeat the previous question,
vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that Republicans
are not opposed to regulations. We just want regulations to be done
right.
These are modest reforms, supported by Republicans and Democrats
alike. Some of these changes merely codify executive orders issued by
the last two Democrat Presidents.
Mr. Speaker, as proud as I am of this legislation, I realize its
passage today won't be front-page news. I understand that ``Lawmakers
Band Together to Close Technical Loopholes in UMRA'' isn't exactly a
riveting headline. But what we are doing here is important.
In Congress, we often focus our energy and attention on those issues
that are most divisive and controversial, and I understand that. There
are real, substantive disagreements between the two parties and among
the American people.
But Congress must do the hard things. Every now and then, we get an
opportunity to do something easy. This should be easy. Reforms in this
bill are low-hanging fruit.
Some of my colleagues have suggestions for improvement and have
offered amendments to these bills. Great. I welcome their suggestions.
Those amendments will be discussed in an open and transparent
process. Not a single proposed amendment to either bill, Democrat or
Republican, has been excluded by this rule.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will join me in supporting
these sensible bills that will enhance transparency, accountability,
and awareness of Federal mandates and improve the Federal Government's
treatment of small businesses.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

[[Page H771]]

An Amendment to H. Res. 78 Offered by Mr. Polls of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
344) to provide for the establishment of a pilot program to
encourage the employment of veterans in manufacturing
positions. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 344.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote on whether to order the previous question on a
special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against
ordering the previous question is a vote against the
Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic
minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about
what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 174, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 59]

YEAS--242

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 (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
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
Jackson Lee
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
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
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 (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--174

[[Page H772]]

Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
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

NOT VOTING--17

Chu (CA)
Curbelo (FL)
Duckworth
Frankel (FL)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Huffman
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Nolan
Nunnelee
Rangel
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)

{time} 1339

Mr. SCHIFF changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 59 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted yes.
Stated against:
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 59 had I been
present, I would have voted No.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll
call vote 59. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted:
Nay on roll call vote 59.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent earlier today during
roll call vote 59. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on
roll call vote 59, the motion on ordering the previous question on the
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 50 and H.R. 527.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243,
noes 179, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 60]

AYES--243

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
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
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
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
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
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 (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--179

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)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
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
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
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
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
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
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--11

Benishek
Chu (CA)
Duckworth
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Lee
Lofgren
Nunnelee
Poe (TX)
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)

{time} 1348

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 60 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes.

____________________