[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H772-H788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 50.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 78 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. 50.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
[[Page H773]]
{time} 1352
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. 50) to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing
Federal mandates, and for other purposes, with Mr. Amodei 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 Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this bill was referred to three other committees other
than the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We have been in
contact with all of them--Judiciary, Budget, and Rules--and they have
agreed to discharge the bill from their committees so that we can
consider the bill on the floor today. I include for the Record those
letters that reflect this understanding between Oversight and
Government Reform and the three other committees.
Mr. Chairman, Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to
``curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and
local governments.''
Twenty years later, we continue to see burdensome unfunded mandates
being imposed on State, local, and tribal governments as well as small
businesses. Despite high hopes, UMRA, as it is often referred to, had
little effect on agency rulemaking because of its limited coverage and
its lack of accountability.
In response, H.R. 50 proposes several key reforms to bring needed
transparency to how government sets rules that protect our health, our
safety, our welfare, as well as the environment. This legislation does
this in several key ways.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 50 requires agencies to consult with the private
sector when directly impacted by a proposed rule.
Consult with the private sector. That is a great theme. I love the
title of this.
It does actually provide more information, more transparency, and
engages those people that are affected by these rules. Requiring agency
rulemakers to consult with small business owners will bring needed
perspective and common sense to how our rules are made. Small
businesses want the government to fully understand how regulations
impact their ability to create jobs and promote economic growth. Of
course we need rules. Of course there are going to be boundaries. But
consulting with the private sector is something that has to happen, and
government needs their perspective.
The bill makes independent agencies subject to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, also known as UMRA. There are hundreds of Federal
independent agencies charged with handling responsibilities, such as
managing workplace safety and protecting our forests. It is important
these entities are accountable to the public when establishing a new
rule. H.R. 50 ensures that that will happen.
H.R. 50 requires an UMRA analysis for all final rules. Under current
law, an agency can forgo an UMRA analysis by avoiding a notice of
proposed rulemaking. GAO reports that 35 percent of major rules are
issued without a notice of proposed rulemaking, making it difficult for
the public to comment.
In fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of
major regulations between $57 billion and $84 billion. We must have a
better understanding of those costs before passing them on to State,
local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector.
The bill strengthens congressional oversight by requiring agencies to
look back at specific regulations when requested by Congress. Before a
rule is tested, it is difficult to understand its consequences,
including its costs and its benefits. President Obama supported
retrospective reviews of regulations by issuing an executive order
requiring agencies to periodically review significant regulations, in
Executive Order 13563, in January 2011. These retrospective reviews
result in regulations that are more effective and less burdensome in
achieving their objective. Retrospective analysis can and should inform
future rules.
H.R. 50 allows judicial review when agencies fail to fully consider
the least costly or least burdensome alternative rule. The bill allows
the judicial branch to place a stay on rules when the agency fails to
complete the required UMRA analysis. This provides an important check
on the executive branch.
H.R. 50 codifies the Congressional Budget Office practice of
estimating the true cost of a Federal mandate. When a Federal mandate
is proposed, CBO ensures its cost estimates include lost profits, costs
passed on to consumers, and behavioral changes as the result of a
Federal mandate.
When enacted, UMRA created an important step to inform Congress of
the potential burdens of regulatory mandates on both government and the
private sector. This way, Congress could weigh any potential benefits
as well as any potential burdens. By updating this law, we can help
ensure that all parties, from government entities to small businesses,
understand the true cost of prospective mandates.
I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). She has
poured her heart and soul into this. She believes passionately in this.
Her leadership on this bill has brought it to this point today. It has
passed three times with bipartisan support in this House, but it is
necessary to bring it up again and to share this bill with a new Senate
that is now in place.
I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 50. It is good. It is
common sense. It is good for this Nation, and it enjoys bipartisan
support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, January 28, 2015.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On January 27, 2015, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without
amendment H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2015, by a vote of 20 to 13. The bill was
referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and
Govemment Reform, with an additional referral to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
I ask that you allow the Judiciary Committee to be
discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it
may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no
way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future
referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee
on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee.
Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any
response in the bill report filed by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration, to
memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, January 28, 2015.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chaffetz, Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 50, the ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency
Act of 2015,'' which your Committee ordered reported on
January 27, 2015.
As a result of your having consulted with the Committee and
in order to expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 50, I
agree to discharge our Committee from further consideration
of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the
House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes
this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing
consideration of H.R. 50 at this time, we do not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation, and that our Committee will be
appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar
legislation moves forward so that we may address any
remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this or similar legislation, and asks that you support any
such request.
[[Page H774]]
I would request that you include a copy of our letters in
the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of
this bill.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, January 28, 2015.
Hon. Tom Price,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On January 27, 2015, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without
amendment H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2015, by a vote of 20 to 13. The bill was
referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, with an additional referral to the
Committee on the Budget.
I ask that you allow the Budget Committee to be discharged
from further consideration of the bill so that it may be
scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way
affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future
referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee
on the Budget represented on the conference committee.
Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any
response in the bill report filed by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration, to
memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, January 28, 2015.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chaffetz: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency
Act of 2015, which was ordered reported by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform on January 27, 2015.
In order to expedite House consideration of H.R. 50, the
Committee on the Budget will forgo action on the bill. This
is being done with the understanding that it does not in any
way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment
of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or
similar legislation.
I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this
matter be included in the bill report filed by the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform as well as in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration. We
appreciate your cooperation and look forward to working with
you as this bill moves through the Congress.
Sincerely,
Thomas Price, M.D.,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, January 29, 2015.
Hon. Peter Sessions,
Chairman, Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On January 27, 2015, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without
amendment H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2015, by a vote of 20 to 13. The bill was
referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, with an additional referral to the
Committee on Rules.
I ask that you allow the Rules Committee to be discharged
from further consideration of the bill so that it may be
scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way
affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future
referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee
on Rules represented on the conference committee. Finally, I
would be pleased to include this letter and any response in
the bill report filed by the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, as well as in the Congressional Record
during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 29, 2015.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chaffetz: On January 27, 2015, the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported H.R. 50,
the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of
2015. As you know, the Committee on Rules was granted an
additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to
the Committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives over rules and joint rules of the
House.
Because of your willingness to consult with my committee
regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill
by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive
its jurisdiction over H.R. 50. In addition, the Committee on
Rules reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any
request by the Committee on Rules for conferees on H.R. 50 or
related legislation.
I also request that you include this letter and your
response as part of your committee's report on the bill and
in the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act. This legislation may be well
intended, but it would have unintended consequences that would make the
government less efficient and less effective.
I stood here just 4 months ago when the House, for the second time,
considered a package of special interest bills, including this one. I
said then that the Republican leadership in the House cannot fool the
American people by passing the same bad bills over and over again, yet,
Mr. Chairman, here we go again.
Yesterday, the House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the
56th time. Today, we are considering an antiregulatory bill the House
has considered three times before. Tomorrow, we will consider another
antiregulatory bill the House has also passed before.
H.R. 50, the bill we are considering today, would add red tape to the
rulemaking process in an effort to slow down or halt agency rules.
{time} 1600
One thing that is different this time around is that the
Congressional Budget Office estimated that H.R. 50 as reported would
increase direct spending by $18 million over the next 10 years. CBO
estimates that this increase would primarily impact the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, a bureau that was established to protect
our constituents.
The majority inserted a last-minute provision last night after the
Rules Committee meeting to address this problem. The majority's fix,
however, does nothing to reduce the cost of the bill.
The majority instead inserted language to cut the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's budget by $36 million in fiscal year 2016. Cutting
CFPB's budget by $36 million while also requiring the agency to comply
with significant new requirements is absurd.
On Saturday, The Huffington Post published an article titled,
``Congress Revives Gingrich-Era Law to Thwart Obama.'' The article
said:
Republicans in Congress aim to revamp an antiregulatory law
from the Newt Gingrich era in an effort to paralyze new
financial, environmental, and labor rules with a never-ending
string of court challenges.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was enacted as a part of Newt
Gingrich's Contract with America. Even in the context of the extreme
agenda of the Contract with America, Congress included several
limitations in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
This bill would repeal those limitations. For example, under this
bill, agencies would be required to consult with regulated industries
on proposed rules before they are even made public.
For example, if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau planned to
propose a new rule to protect consumers from abusive mortgage
practices, banks would get advance access to the rule and the
opportunity to shape it before our constituents, the consumers.
I believe that businesses should have the opportunity to provide
comments on proposed rules, but they should do it through the normal
public comment process just like other stakeholders.
H.R. 50 would also expand judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The statute currently prohibits courts from using its
requirements to delay or invalidate a rule.
[[Page H775]]
This bill eliminates that restriction which would allow regulated
industries to use the law to slow down rulemakings.
This bill also would put independent agencies in jeopardy of
political interference. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently
exempts independent agencies from its reporting requirements. The bill
removes that exemption.
That would mean that the independent regulatory agencies like the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau would have to submit their rules to the Office of
Management and Budget for review which could undermine their
independence.
Section 12 of the bill would require an agency to perform
retrospective review, including an additional cost-benefit analysis of
any existing rules if requested by the chairman or ranking member of a
committee. It is interesting that we always talk about being able to
predict what is going to go on in the business world. This certainly
would add a high level of unpredictability.
I will offer an amendment at the appropriate time to strike that
provision. These flaws are reason enough to oppose this bill.
The most important reason is that we rely on agency rulemakings to
protect our children, protect our workers, protect our economy, and
protect our constituents, the folks who sent us here.
That is why the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--a group of more
than 150 good government, labor, scientific, faith, health, and
community organizations--sent a letter to the Oversight Committee
opposing this bill.
Here is what the letter said: ``The costs of deregulation should be
obvious by now: the Wall Street economic collapse, various food and
product safety recalls, and numerous 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.''
Congress should be moving forward to protect the public from harm,
not rolling back the clock and weakening important safeguards.
Yesterday, the White House issued a statement opposing this bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, the prime
sponsor of this bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time and
for the leadership he has provided in getting this bill passed out of
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to probably have to say this many times
today, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to make
this an antiregulation bill. We are not opposed to regulations on our
side of the aisle. We are in favor of commonsense rules.
Mr. Chairman, each year, Washington imposes thousands of pages of
rules and regulations on America's private sector employers, as well as
State and local governments. Buried in those pages are costly Federal
mandates that make it harder for businesses to hire and cash-strapped
States, counties, and cities to serve their citizens.
As a former State senator, I can testify to the difficulty of
balancing the State's budget when there are dozens of complicated,
mostly unfunded Federal mandates that must be taken into account.
As a former small business owner, I understand firsthand the concerns
that job creators have about how lengthy, confusing rules affect their
ability to conduct business and provide jobs and opportunities to their
employees.
That is why I introduced H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information
and Transparency Act, which we call UMITA, and am proud to see it
brought before the House for consideration.
The bill builds upon the bipartisan 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act, also known as UMRA, and will ensure awareness and public
disclosure of the cost in dollars and jobs that Federal dictates pose
to the economy and local governments.
H.R. 50 does not seek to prevent the Federal Government from
regulating; rather, it seeks to ensure that its regulations are
deliberative and economically defensible. Asking regulators to consider
thoroughly and understand the cost of a rule in addition to its
benefits should not be controversial. It is just plain common sense.
Regulators and legislators should know exactly what they are asking
the American people to pay and whether the costs of compliance might
make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat.
No government body, on purpose or accidentally, should skirt public
scrutiny when jobs and scarce resources are at stake.
In the nearly 20 years since UMRA's passage, weaknesses in the law
have been revealed, weaknesses that some government agencies and
independent regulatory bodies have exploited. UMITA makes independent
regulatory agencies subject to UMRA's requirements, ending a two-tier
system that allowed regulations to be implemented without the required
consideration, scrutiny, or public input.
H.R. 50 recognizes that the Federal Government's reach extends well
beyond the taxes it collects and the money it spends. Regulations can
advance government initiatives without using tax dollars.
Rather than count expenses for new programs, the government can
require the private sector, as well as State and local governments, to
pay for Federal initiatives through compliance costs. This bill shines
much-needed light on the murky regulatory process and ensures the
public has transparent access to proposed rules and regulations.
Both Democrats and Republicans recognize that appropriate regulations
don't need to be issued in the dead of night or negotiated behind
closed doors. That is why the House has considered and passed this bill
three times in the 112th and 113th Congresses.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense, bipartisan
bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government
Operations.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act.
This act boasts an Orwellian title that attempts, I think, deception
of the public into believing that it is simply an innocuous attempt to
enhance transparency for the public and State and local governments
while masking the true nature of this act which--make no mistake--is a
subversive legislative assault of public health, safety, and
environmental protections.
This bill is simply an effort to throw a wrench into the rulemaking
process, ensuring that private industry is provided privileges and
rights above any other stakeholder in the process.
In many respects, H.R. 50 represents the ``Mitt Romney principle'' on
steroids, for it appears that in the minds of some of my colleagues,
not only is it a fact that ``corporations are people, my friend,'' but
under this measure, they appear to be embracing an ethos that treats
corporations even better than people.
My longstanding principle is that I will never defend the
indefensible, and regrettably, this bill provides private corporations
with an unfair consultation over every other stakeholder in the
regulatory process, and that is indefensible.
Under this bill, Federal agencies would be required to consult with
private industry ``before issuance of a notice of proposed
rulemaking,'' yet it does not afford that same level of protection or
consultation to average citizens, consumers, or anybody else who relies
on agency rules to preserve and protect their health, welfare, and
safety.
There is no justification for enacting an irrational statutory
framework that requires the Federal Government to consult with private
firms and nobody else--such as a large agribusiness, for example--prior
to proposing a rule that could have an impact on that company, yet does
not require such consultation on public health with public health
experts.
I cannot defend a regulatory framework that would provide big oil
companies a guaranteed right to weigh in before any drilling regulation
is promulgated to protect the public from big oil
[[Page H776]]
spills, such as one we experienced just a few years ago.
To be clear, I strongly support the right of industry to have its
voice and to have the opportunity to provide comments on proposed
rules. This fosters more informed and high-quality rulemaking,
benefiting business and society; indeed, that is why our current
administrative procedures mandate that a public comment period be
provided prior to the adoption of such rules.
Equally concerning, H.R. 50 would also undermine the critical
independence of aptly titled independent regulatory agencies. It is not
clear how eliminating the independence of agencies, such as the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, by empowering Presidential
administrations to play a significant role in shaping the rules for
those agencies before they issue them, would in any way address
unfunded mandates.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CONNOLLY. The bottom line is that well-reasoned agency rules have
made our air cleaner to breathe, water safer to drink, and our products
safer to use. That is a good formula, and we should preserve it.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
It would be inaccurate and inappropriate to suggest that this bill
bypasses individuals. To the contrary, the bill says, ``and impacted
parties within the private sector.'' The definition of ``private
sector'' under UMRA--the term ``private sector'' means ``all persons or
entities in the United States, including individuals.''
Any assertion on this floor that this gives unilateral priority to
the individual corporations and bypasses the individuals, we are trying
to give people who are affected by these rules--we are trying to give
them the opportunity to be heard.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for allowing me
time.
I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 50. I consider it a misguided
bill that will cost American consumers at least $18 million over the
next 10 years while making it easier for bad actors in certain
industries to continue their abusive practices as they attempt to
stonewall appropriate regulation.
{time} 1415
Make no mistake. H.R. 50 is a frontal assault on the Nation's health,
safety, and environmental protections, and it would erect new barriers
to give selected industries a built-in advantage to evade or eliminate
vital rules that protect the American people.
For instance, this bill would require agencies to consult with
private sector entities ``as early as possible, before the issuance of
a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue through the final rule stage,
and be integrated explicitly into the rulemaking process.''
Now, I agree that Federal agencies should consult with regulated
industries regarding proposed rules, but they should not receive an
insider, prewired advantage in the regulating and rulemaking process
over other stakeholders.
H.R. 50 would also expand judicial review under UMRA and would allow
a court to review the inadequacy or failure of an agency to prepare a
written statement under UMRA. UMRA currently prohibits courts from
using the law to stay, invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule.
H.R. 50 would eliminate this prohibition.
I thought the majority strongly opposed judicial activism, but
perhaps that only applies to protecting voting rights.
We don't have to choose between protecting the health, welfare, and
safety of Americans and promoting economic growth, job creation, and
innovation. We can do both. H.R. 50 advances neither of these worthy
goals, and that is why I urge my colleagues to reject this deeply
flawed act that will stack the deck against the American consumer.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding his
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 50, the Unfunded
Mandates Information and Transparency Act.
The alarming growth of our Federal Government in the last several
decades has come at an incredible cost. This is largely due to lax
reporting requirements, and as a result, the American people have
largely been left in the dark as to the true cost of this unprecedented
growth. For example, we all know that, often, the Federal Government
imposes mandates, be it upon the private sector or local or State
governments, and, oftentimes, this is without any clearly disclosed
cost or impact of those mandates.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 50 will make significant strides to address this
looming problem by enacting more strict and clearly defined
requirements about how and when agencies need to disclose the cost of
these Federal mandates. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
to support this bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and for
his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 50.
With all due respect to my friend from Utah--and I do respect him; I
know he didn't write this bill--there is a common practice here in
Congress that you name the bill in a way that describes the opposite of
what it will actually do. This is supposed to be an accountability
bill, but this bill ought to be named the ``Government Gridlock Act''
because that is what it will introduce.
While I certainly respect everyone's opinion and position against Big
Government--I certainly understand that. You can be against intrusive
government. I understand that. But you can't be against a functioning
government, and that is what this bill accomplishes.
This bill, as the gentleman did point out, does allow individual
taxpayers to sue. Mrs. Gilhooly and Mr. Gilhooly can sue, but so can
Exxon and so can JPMorgan Chase attack regulations under this bill.
This bill makes the financial ability to sustain a legal challenge as
the litmus test on how much justice you get under this bill.
Even though Congress has the ability to pass laws and to direct
regulators to come up with regulations, large, well-financed banks and
industries like the oil industry will be able to undo the direction of
Congress by proffering legal challenges with enormous resources to stop
those laws from coming into effect.
A good example is the financial services industry, where we under
Dodd-Frank have directed that there be 300 separate rules developed to
deal with the problems created by the crisis in 2008. That crisis cost
$20 trillion to the American economy. Yet, under this law, in order to
prevent big banks from taking those reckless gambles, we would have to
force the regulators to show that the reduction in cost to the American
taxpayer justified the regulation against Wall Street.
It misses the point. We are trying to bifurcate the risks created by
Wall Street from the taxpayers' requirement to bail them out. This bill
ignores that reality. I think we should all oppose it, and I urge my
colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this bill and
for bringing it through regular order. We continue to hear that around
here on this particular bill.
Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from Massachusetts leaves, I think
it is important that we address this. As the gentleman would indicate,
he is making this out to be all about big banks, but it is really about
the small business folks and, truly, about the municipalities. I want
to read a few excerpts from the resolution that comes from his home
State--from Massachusetts--because they got together, and they said
this is a real problem:
``Whereas, the Federal Government has imposed additional
requirements, based on incomplete scientific analysis
[[Page H777]]
and review, on the cities and towns of Massachusetts.'' In this
resolution, Mr. Chairman, it talks about going further and that, at a
minimum, what we should do is provide a ``fiscal note included as part
of any such proposal.''
So it is the towns and the counties across the country and, yes,
indeed, from the gentleman--my esteemed friend from Massachusetts--a
resolution from his State that talks about the problems that we have
with unfunded mandates. Over 850 major pieces of regulation, with
impacts of over $100 million a piece, have failed this basic principle
and test, and 75 percent of them never get the analysis that we should
be doing at the Federal Government.
We have a responsibility to the local towns and governments but also
a responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to farmers. I left a hearing today with
the EPA and an unfunded mandate. Who are they consulting with? The
Department of Agriculture, not with the farmers from across this great
country. They are talking to other bureaucrats. It is time that we
bring the private sector in, and I think it is time that we stand
alongside them.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a new member of our committee.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 50,
the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. Although the
intent of this legislation is to, no doubt, provide additional
safeguards, it does, in fact, add an additional level of bureaucracy.
It appears to be a good bill. As a former mayor, I fought to ensure
that my city and other cities were not unduly impacted by unfunded
Federal mandates. In Michigan, we worked cooperatively with our Federal
counterparts on proposed regulations that would generate obligations on
local governments. In fact, as a local government official, I supported
the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, as it was a result of multiple years
of effort by our State and local government officials to control the
burden of many unfunded Federal mandates.
Along with the consequences I have previously mentioned, this bill
will also grant corporations special access to information about a rule
and an opportunity to submit feedback to an agency before a rule is
even proposed. Additionally, the legislation would shut the American
people out of this early review. The bill would also require agencies
to perform retrospective analysis at the request of any chairman or
ranking minority member of any standing or select committee of the
House or the Senate. The bill neither improves nor streamlines the
regulatory process. It expands agency roles and interjects politics
into the process.
The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for overseeing the
implementation of the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency
Act. This bill also expands OMB's role, and it requires them to
guarantee that each agency complies with the act's requirements.
Independent regulatory agencies will then have to send their rulemaking
analyses to OMB.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. The existing Unfunded Mandates Reform Act expressly
prohibits courts from using the law to stay, enjoin, invalidate, or
otherwise affect an agency rule. H.R. 50 would fundamentally change the
law by eliminating this prohibition, allowing regulated industries to
abuse this expanded judicial review and tie up rules in litigation for
years.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this act, and I request that
this body work within the existing safeguards in place.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority
leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are many parts of government that like to act in
secrecy. In particular, many agencies like to hide the true costs of
their regulations from the American people. After all, it is easier to
add more pages to the Federal Register if nobody is sure exactly what
the pricetag is, but that is not the way our democracy should work. For
government to work, it needs to be accountable to the people. To be
accountable to the people, government needs to be honest and open with
what it is doing.
Washington needs reform, and a good place to start is to make sure
that people know the true cost of what Washington is doing--no
gimmicks, no hidden fees. That is why I support Representative Foxx's
bill, which demands transparency on unfunded mandates.
Mr. Chairman, this bill says a simple thing. It says we trust the
people. It says if the bureaucracy is afraid of telling the people how
much a regulation costs, then it shouldn't impose the regulation. If
bureaucracy isn't following the rules and giving the people the
information they need, this bill allows the courts to review the
agency--no more hiding. The people have the right to know as much as
possible, and Washington has an obligation to tell them.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to remind the gentleman before he leaves the Chamber that
there is truth here. The truth is that the CBO has already estimated
that this bill will cost some $18 million. There is also truth here
with regard to what has happened to the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau--the very bureau that this Congress established to protect our
consumers on a day-to-day basis--and its losing some $36 million. That
is the transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey
(Mrs. Watson Coleman).
{time} 1430
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member, for this opportunity to
speak.
I rise today also in opposition to H.R. 50, the misleadingly named
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, which
passed out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on a
strictly partisan vote.
This bill neither improves nor streamlines the regulatory process.
Instead, this ill-conceived bill is an assault on consumer protections,
gives private industry an unfair advantage to weigh in on rules, and
erects new, unnecessary barriers in the regulatory process.
H.R. 50 would require agencies to provide the private sector with an
unfair advantage to influence proposed regulations. The supporters of
this bill claim that it creates parity between the private and the
public sectors, but that is simply not true. What it really does is
provide the private sector with a sneak peek of proposed rules before
they are even made public.
This bill propels regulated private sector entities to the front of
the line while pushing the consumers these laws are designed to protect
to the back of the line. It further gums up the regulatory process by
allowing opponents to delay or invalidate rules through litigation.
The existing Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 prohibits courts
from using the law to stay, enjoin, invalidate, or otherwise affect an
agency rule. H.R. 50 would fundamentally change that law by eliminating
this prohibition, giving regulated industries the ability to abuse this
expanded judicial review and tie up rules in courts for years. For
example, Wall Street banks could take agencies to court over Dodd-Frank
consumer protection rules that have yet to be finalized.
Most Americans, and certainly most of my constituents that I
represent, simply do not have the means to hire lawyers to sue Federal
agencies if they are dissatisfied with a Federal regulation, but large
corporations do. H.R. 50 would give corporations the ability to sue and
to stall regulations they view as unfavorable.
By unnecessarily layering an additional, burdensome judicial review
and giving private industry an unfair advantage, this bill shows that
it is not working for the consumers, but it is only working for the
chosen few.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time left on both
sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining,
[[Page H778]]
and the gentleman from Maryland has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, every day small businesses and local
governments are weighed down by Washington's numerous regulations. H.R.
50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, acts to
curb the constant rules and regulations that Washington continues to
impose on the American people.
This law builds on and improves the bipartisan legislation, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which was enacted to promote
transparent decisionmaking and curb unfunded Federal mandates. However,
due to loopholes and exemptions, UMRA has failed to keep unfunded
mandates off the backs of local governments and taxpayers.
I would like to thank Congresswoman Foxx for introducing this
bipartisan legislation to close these gaps, hold Washington
accountable, and better protect our fellow Americans.
Importantly, this bill will do three things: one, it will close
loopholes that allow agencies and independent regulators to forgo UMRA
analysis; two, it enables stakeholders to engage Federal agencies
before unfunded mandates are implemented; and three, it holds
regulators accountable through the courts and congressional oversight.
I am reminded every day that we were elected to bring change to
Washington, and this reform is exactly what needs to be sent to the
President's desk.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Maryland for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has a lot of chutzpah even for a probusiness
majority. The point of the review and comment regulatory process is to
hear from everybody, to pull everybody into the process.
I have experienced how this process worked when I chaired the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. In order to make sure I heard from
everyone, I took a process which issued guidelines, which did not come
under the Administrative Procedure Act, and put it under the
Administrative Procedure Act to make sure I heard from everyone.
In a real sense, I knew, I thought I knew what the public wanted
because I was a civil rights lawyer. I was particularly interested in
whether the reforms I was instituting would work in practice. So I was
more interested, in a real sense, in what the business community said.
I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, in these processes, the business
community, small and large, dwarfs the public in the amount of comment
that agencies receive.
This bill breaks a cardinal rule by excluding, of all people, the
public, while industry gets an advance look at a bill. Understand, it
is the industry that is being regulated, industry that has the high-
cost lobbyists, the high-cost lawyers that the public does not have.
So what is the point here, Mr. Chairman? It is clear. The point is to
get industry in on writing the bill itself and writing it at that stage
before the public even gets to know what the bill is. This is not a
tilt in favor of the objects of regulations; it is a slide in their
favor.
If the point is the usual bipartisan point, to help small
businesses--which, by the way, is already a stakeholder--along with
other businesses, why pit small businesses against small children and
small mortgage holders and small IT users?
Another extraordinary thing I see in this bill is that the court-
hating majority, at least in this bill, falls in love with the
judiciary by inviting litigation before the rule is final. The courts
will just love that. On top of everything else, this bill adds $18
million over 10 years to agency spending?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. NORTON. $18 million that this majority certainly will not
appropriate.
Small business always have been a bipartisan concern. We have many
more of them in our districts than we have large businesses. Small
businesses are not who will come to ``consult.'' It is the global
multinationals who are applauding this bill as we speak.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point to the bill because
it keeps getting repeated on this floor that it doesn't include the
public, it doesn't include individuals. That is just not true.
On page 12 of the bill:
Agencies shall, to the extent practicable, seek out the
views of State, local, and tribal governments, and impacted
parties within the private sector.
Definition of private sector: the term ``private sector'' means all
persons or entities in the United States, including individuals.
It sounds like a good rhetorical point to keep saying: Oh, we are
leaving out the little guy; we are leaving out the public. It does
include the public; it does include the individuals; and when these
unfunded mandates are placed upon them, this bill would make sure that
they are at least asked about it. That is what we are seeking.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, the chairman points out very clearly that,
indeed, the definition of ``private sector'' includes individuals. I
would also like to go further and talk about small businesses.
We are talking about small businesses and how they are not supported
in this. It is troubling, because if that were the case, the National
Federation of Independent Businesses, who represents thousands and
thousands of small businesses, or the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Council, which does the same, would not be endorsing
this piece of legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure the
record is corrected.
With regards to the $18 million, that was cleared up in Rules
yesterday; the committee was made aware of it. And despite the
legislation being identical to last Congress' bill, the CBO had scored
it as having a direct spending cost, but this was partly because the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, doesn't have the authority
to collect the fees. And so we have already addressed that, Mr.
Chairman, and I wanted to make sure we cleared up the record.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California
(Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial
Services.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time
that has been allotted to me. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings.
I rise to oppose H.R. 50, an anticonsumer deregulatory bill that
would stop rulemaking by our Nation's financial overseers dead in its
tracks. In 2008, we witnessed the worst financial crisis since 1929,
which halted lending to small businesses, left millions without a home,
and pushed countless Americans into personal bankruptcy and ruin, after
which my colleagues and I in Congress worked diligently to put in place
serious and comprehensive safeguards to prevent another collapse.
Nevertheless, today House Republicans are suffering from selective
amnesia when they push this legislation to undo financial reform.
Indeed, this bill, H.R. 50, places significant administrative hurdles
on our regulators, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Certain provisions require our regulators, who are tasked with
protecting consumers and investors, to conduct onerous, industry-
friendly, cost-benefit analysis and to submit their rules for review to
the Office of Management and Budget. This hurts their ability to act
independently and in the best interests of the public.
In addition, this bill would arm special interests with a time-tested
weapon to delay and kill reform, the opportunity to challenge our cash-
strapped regulators in court on every rule. But this is the ultimate
point of the bill: to make regulating everything from securities,
fraud, payday loans, credit cards, insider trading, and derivatives
that much harder.
Most concerning is that Republicans want to pay for the cost of their
new burdens by depriving the one regulator charged with protecting our
Nation's
[[Page H779]]
consumers of tens of millions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman, this is just the latest in a never-ending effort to
unravel the important protections for consumers and taxpayers this
Congress put in place following the worst crisis in a generation.
With our economy still recovering from the $14 trillion financial
crisis, with families in my own district and probably yours still
struggling with foreclosure and unsure how they will be able to make
ends meet in retirement, we simply cannot undermine fundamental reforms
or the agencies enforcing them.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make Mr. Cummings aware
that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close, but I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
I want to echo the comments of Ranking Member Waters. As a member of
the Committee on Financial Services, I am particularly concerned with
the direction that this bill takes us at a time when, on one hand, many
of my colleagues have criticized the agencies charged with
implementation of important regulatory reforms, such as Dodd-Frank,
charging those agencies with not bringing forth rules in a timely
fashion, and then at the same time reducing, through the budget
process, the necessary resources to provide those agencies with the
tools that they need to move forward on the rulemaking process, and now
this, yet another, I think, effort to create another cumbersome step in
the process of developing rules intended to implement legislation that
was passed here by the United States Congress, law that is on the
books.
{time} 1445
The rulemaking process already includes a very logical progression of
steps which allows for a comprehensive and all-inclusive comment period
under the Administrative Procedure Act that allows the kind of
substantive input that is specific to the rules being proposed to be
provided, to be considered, to modify proposed rules, and then to move
forward in an orderly process.
The other concern that I have is that there is language that is
troublesome to me in terms of the way cost-benefit analyses would be
conducted and considered.
Very often--and there is no better example than in the financial
sector--if we limit ourselves to industry-specific costs and benefits,
we lose the fact that many of the costs are not borne by those in the
industry but those consumers who bear the brunt of their tactics.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to be clear. Many things concern me about this
legislation. We need to be very careful about this.
We have a situation here where this is clearly an effort to give Big
Business an advantage. All the speakers on our side have talked to
that. We can go around saying we don't need regulations, but
regulations are very, very important. This President has done a lot
with regard to addressing the issue of regulations.
There is something else that is happening here that really bothers
me. There was a tremendous effort by the other side when we were trying
to get the consumer financial protection bill passed.
After seeing our constituents abused over and over again, we bring
about an agency that would bring them some type of protection, and
here, we are taking away money from an agency that already needs money,
the very agency that is there to help our constituents. That concerns
me.
The other thing that concerns me is that we have an extra layer here.
It makes it much more difficult now with regard to rulemaking, and then
to have the courts have the ability to delay and basically take away
rules is unprecedented. That is something that even Newt Gingrich
didn't do.
We need to look at what we are doing and bring a sense of balance,
and the other side will say that balance is brought about because
private industry is given an opportunity to be involved in the process.
Well, they really do have a tremendous advantage because, as Ms.
Norton said, they are the ones that have the lawyers. They are the ones
who have the big money. They are the ones now who will be able to come
in before the regulations are even formulated and have their say while
the public won't be in that kind of position.
Let's not kid ourselves. We are putting our constituents at a decided
disadvantage, no matter how you look at it. This is a triumph for Big
Business.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The one who is in the power position, the one who has got the
resources, the one that has got the attorneys is the government. The
government is the one that has got all the cards.
All we are asking for is to allow input from individuals, small
businesses, big businesses. If you are going to be affected, isn't it
common sense to suggest that maybe they should talk to the people that
they are going to put this mandate on? Let's have a discussion, a
dialogue, get some input from them?
The name of this bill is very, very accurate, Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act. What are we afraid of, asking them
the question: How are you going to be impacted? What is this going to
do to the economy?
What I hear from my constituents--and I have heard it from outside of
Utah's Third Congressional District--is the Federal Government comes in
with its big, heavy hand, and they have no voice, no opportunity. It is
just laid upon them.
I appreciate Dr. Foxx and what she is doing. We also hear from State,
local, and tribal governments, from small businesses and business
organizations that are in support of this bill.
In fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of
major regulations was between $57 billion and $84 billion. There is
room. There is appropriate use of regulations. To suggest that we are
opposed to all regulations is irresponsible.
I think there are good regulations that are in place--they make our
country better--but there needs to be a process and a communication and
input from individuals that are affected by these regulations.
We have got to understand the costs and how we are passing these
unfunded mandates on to State and local governments. This is an
important part of the process.
Updating this law, we can ensure all parties, from government
entities to small businesses to individuals, understand the true costs
of the prospective mandates.
This bill should successfully pass in the House again, and I urge my
colleagues to support it. I applaud Dr. Foxx from North Carolina, the
prime sponsor of this, for moving this legislation.
I would urge, my colleagues, a ``yea'' vote on H.R. 50, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-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 House Report 114-14, is adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 50
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is--
(1) to improve the quality of the deliberations of Congress
with respect to proposed Federal mandates by--
[[Page H780]]
(A) providing Congress and the public with more complete
information about the effects of such mandates; and
(B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after
focused deliberation on their effects; and
(2) to enhance the ability of Congress and the public to
identify Federal mandates that may impose undue harm on
consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, and State,
local, and tribal governments.
SEC. 3. PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE STUDIES ON
POLICIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF
GRANT AID.
Section 202(g) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 602(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Additional studies.--At the request of any Chairman
or ranking member of the minority of a Committee of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director shall
conduct an assessment comparing the authorized level of
funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of
carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal assistance
being imposed on State, local, or tribal governments
participating in the Federal assistance program concerned or,
in the case of a bill or joint resolution that authorizes
such sums as are necessary, an assessment of an estimated
level of funding compared to such costs.''.
SEC. 4. CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT COSTS TO REFLECT
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRACTICE.
Section 421(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``incur or''
before ``be required''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``to spend''
the following: ``or could forgo in profits, including costs
passed on to consumers or other entities taking into account,
to the extent practicable, behavioral changes,''.
SEC. 5. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO
INCLUDE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY INDEPENDENT
REGULATORY AGENCIES.
Paragraph (1) of section 421 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658) is amended by striking ``, but
does not include independent regulatory agencies'' and
inserting ``, except it does not include the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee''.
SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO REPLACE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WITH OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY
AFFAIRS.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4;
2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 103(c) (2 U.S.C. 1511(c))--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Office of
Management and Budget'' and inserting ``Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs''; and
(B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and
Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs'';
(2) in section 205(c) (2 U.S.C. 1535(c))--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``OMB''; and
(B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and
Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs''; and
(3) in section 206 (2 U.S.C. 1536), by striking ``Director
of the Office of Management and Budget'' and inserting
``Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs''.
SEC. 7. APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE POINT OF ORDER TO PRIVATE SECTOR
MANDATES.
Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(2) by inserting ``or 424(b)(1)'' after ``section
424(a)(1)''.
SEC. 8. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.
Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.
``(a) In General.--Each agency shall, unless otherwise
expressly prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector (other than to the extent that such
regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set
forth in law) in accordance with the following principles:
``(1) Each agency shall identify the problem that it
intends to address (including, if applicable, the failures of
private markets or public institutions that warrant new
agency action) as well as assess the significance of that
problem.
``(2) Each agency shall examine whether existing
regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed to,
the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and
whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified
to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively.
``(3) Each agency shall identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such
as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information
upon which choices can be made by the public.
``(4) If an agency determines that a regulation is the best
available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it
shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective
manner to achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, each
agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency,
predictability, the costs of enforcement and compliance (to
the government, regulated entities, and the public),
flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity.
``(5) Each agency shall assess both the costs and the
benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that
some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or
adopt a regulation, unless expressly prohibited by law, only
upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
``(6) Each agency shall base its decisions on the best
reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and
other information concerning the need for, and consequences
of, the intended regulation.
``(7) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative
forms of regulation and shall, to the extent feasible,
specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt.
``(8) Each agency shall avoid regulations that are
inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other
regulations or those of other Federal agencies.
``(9) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to minimize
the costs of the cumulative impact of regulations.
``(10) Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple
and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the
potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such
uncertainty.
``(b) Regulatory Action Defined.--In this section, the term
`regulatory action' means any substantive action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking
and notices of proposed rulemaking.''.
SEC. 9. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY
SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by
law, before promulgating any general notice of proposed
rulemaking or any final rule, or within six months after
promulgating any final rule that was not preceded by a
general notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed
rulemaking or final rule includes a Federal mandate that may
result in an annual effect on State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, in the aggregate of
$100,000,000 or more in any 1 year, the agency shall prepare
a written statement containing the following:
``(1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking or final
rule, together with a reasonably detailed description of the
need for the proposed rulemaking or final rule and an
explanation of how the proposed rulemaking or final rule will
meet that need.
``(2) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of
the proposed rulemaking or final rule, including an
explanation of the manner in which the proposed rulemaking or
final rule is consistent with a statutory requirement and
avoids undue interference with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
``(3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including
the underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the
proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the promotion of
the efficient functioning of the economy and private markets,
the enhancement of health and safety, the protection of the
natural environment, and the elimination or reduction of
discrimination or bias).
``(4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including
the underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the
proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the direct costs
both to the Government in administering the final rule and to
businesses and others in complying with the final rule, and
any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the
economy, private markets (including productivity, employment,
and international competitiveness), health, safety, and the
natural environment).
``(5) Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that
the agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably
feasible, of--
``(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate;
and
``(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal
mandate upon any particular regions of the Nation or
particular State, local, or tribal governments, urban or
rural or other types of communities, or particular segments
of the private sector.
``(6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of the
agency's prior consultation with the private sector and
elected representatives (under section 204) of the affected
State, local, and tribal governments.
``(B) A detailed summary of the comments and concerns that
were presented by the private sector and State, local, or
tribal governments either orally or in writing to the agency.
``(C) A detailed summary of the agency's evaluation of
those comments and concerns.
``(7) A detailed summary of how the agency complied with
each of the regulatory principles described in section
201.''.
(b) Requirement for Detailed Summary.--Subsection (b) of
section 202 of such Act is amended by inserting ``detailed''
before ``summary''.
SEC. 10. ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.
Section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1534) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND PRIVATE
SECTOR'' before ``INPUT'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``, and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small business),'' after ``on their
behalf)''; and
(B) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
[[Page H781]]
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Guidelines.--For appropriate implementation of
subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and
regulations, the following guidelines shall be followed:
``(1) Consultations shall take place as early as possible,
before issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue
through the final rule stage, and be integrated explicitly
into the rulemaking process.
``(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of State,
local, and tribal officials and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small businesses). Geographic,
political, and other factors that may differentiate varying
points of view should be considered.
``(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and costs to assist
with these consultations. The scope of the consultation
should reflect the cost and significance of the Federal
mandate being considered.
``(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) seek out the views of State, local, and tribal
governments, and impacted parties within the private sector
(including small business), on costs, benefits, and risks;
and
``(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods of compliance
and potential flexibilities, and input on whether the Federal
regulation will harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws
in other levels of government.
``(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact of
regulations on the affected entities.
``(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of
comments by relevant parties but may not use those comments
as the sole method of satisfying the guidelines in this
subsection.''.
SEC. 11. NEW AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OFFICE OF
INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.
Section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1538) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
RESPONSIBILITIES.
``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide meaningful
guidance and oversight so that each agency's regulations for
which a written statement is required under section 202 are
consistent with the principles and requirements of this
title, as well as other applicable laws, and do not conflict
with the policies or actions of another agency. If the
Administrator determines that an agency's regulations for
which a written statement is required under section 202 do
not comply with such principles and requirements, are not
consistent with other applicable laws, or conflict with the
policies or actions of another agency, the Administrator
shall identify areas of non-compliance, notify the agency,
and request that the agency comply before the agency
finalizes the regulation concerned.
``(b) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--
The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs annually shall submit to Congress, including the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives, a written report
detailing compliance by each agency with the requirements of
this title that relate to regulations for which a written
statement is required by section 202, including activities
undertaken at the request of the Director to improve
compliance, during the preceding reporting period. The report
shall also contain an appendix detailing compliance by each
agency with section 204.''.
SEC. 12. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4;
2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 209 as section 210; and
(2) by inserting after section 208 the following new
section 209:
``SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.
``(a) Requirement.--At the request of the chairman or
ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of
the House of Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall
conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal
regulation promulgated by an agency.
``(b) Report.--Each agency conducting a retrospective
analysis of existing Federal regulations pursuant to
subsection (a) shall submit to the chairman of the relevant
committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report
containing, with respect to each Federal regulation covered
by the analysis--
``(1) a copy of the Federal regulation;
``(2) the continued need for the Federal regulation;
``(3) the nature of comments or complaints received
concerning the Federal regulation from the public since the
Federal regulation was promulgated;
``(4) the extent to which the Federal regulation overlaps,
duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal regulations, and,
to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental
rules;
``(5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions,
or other factors have changed in the area affected by the
Federal regulation;
``(6) a complete analysis of the retrospective direct costs
and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies
done outside the Federal Government (if any) estimating such
costs or benefits; and
``(7) any litigation history challenging the Federal
regulation.''.
SEC. 13. EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Section 401(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1571(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)--
(A) by striking ``sections 202 and 203(a)(1) and (2)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1)
and (2), and 205(a) and (b)''; and
(B) by striking ``only'' each place it appears;
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``section 202'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
the following: ``section 202, prepare the written plan under
section 203(a)(1) and (2), or comply with section 205(a) and
(b), a court may compel the agency to prepare such written
statement, prepare such written plan, or comply with such
section.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``written statement or
plan is required'' and all that follows through ``shall not''
and inserting the following: ``written statement under
section 202, a written plan under section 203(a)(1) and (2),
or compliance with sections 201 and 205(a) and (b) is
required, the inadequacy or failure to prepare such statement
(including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate,
analysis, statement, or description), to prepare such written
plan, or to comply with such section may''.
SEC. 14. BUREAU FUNDING AUTHORITY.
The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
may not request, under section 1017 of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010, during fiscal year 2016 an amount
that would result in the total amount requested by the
Director during that fiscal year to exceed $550,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part C of the report. Each such
further 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. Reed
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part C of House Report 114-14.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 1, insert ``private property owners,'' after
``small businesses,''.
Page 10, line 24, strike the closing quotation marks and
second period.
Page 10, after line 24, add the following:
``(8) An assessment of the effects that the proposed
rulemaking or final rule are expected to have on private
property owners, including the use and value of affected
property.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 78, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Reed) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, private property rights are fundamental to our
liberties and freedom as American citizens. These rights are recognized
in the Fifth Amendment to our United States Constitution.
The overreaching actions from government on all levels--in particular
here, today, the Federal Government and its agencies--is infringing on
these rights by limiting property use and impacting property values.
This is not right, and we must address this issue.
My amendment is simple, and it is fair. The amendment will require
agencies to assess the impact of their governmental actions on private
property, including the use and value of that private property.
Mr. Chairman, this will ensure fairness and transparency. Agencies
will have to recognize the effects their government action will have on
private property once this amendment is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard from constituents in my district and from
across America that this government needs to be held in check and, in
particular, when it comes to our fundamental freedoms such as private
property rights.
At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Utah, Chairman Chaffetz, chairman of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Congressman Reed and what he
is trying to do here. I think this makes a lot of sense.
His amendment asks agencies to consider the effects of regulatory
action upon private property owners. The amendment furthers the bill's
intent to
[[Page H782]]
provide more input from private sector entities and taxpayers affected
by these regulations. It thinks of farms and other types of public land
issues that we deal with, particularly out West, but across the Nation.
Federal regulators should consider the effects of any regulation on
private property owners.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to really oppose this
amendment. This amendment would add a requirement that agencies
evaluate the impacts of a rule on private property owners. I do not
object to this requirement in isolation.
The problem is that this amendment adds one more requirement to the
layers of red tape this bill already adds to the rulemaking process.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman
for their lack of opposition in support of this amendment.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just say, as we care about American
citizens across the country, we must stand with them, and we must
support their fundamental freedoms that are represented in our
Constitution, and that is what this amendment will do.
It is a simple, concise amendment that will just recognize that the
government, once and for all, must recognize that it is impacting
private property rights in America with its actions and quantify that
impact when it comes to the use and value of their private property.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cummings
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part C of House Report 114-14.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 12.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 78, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 12 of the
bill.
Section 12 would require an agency to perform a retrospective
analysis of any existing rule any time a committee chairman or ranking
member asked for it.
Under this section, any one of nearly 100 Members of Congress could
tie an agency up in knots, forcing review after review of any existing
rule.
I asked the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to analyze the
constitutionality of this section. CRS provided my staff with a memo
that found that section 12 of H.R. 50 raises a serious constitutional
question.
CRS evaluated the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in INS v.
Chadha. In that case, the Court held that Congress can exercise its
legislative authority only through bicameral passage of legislation
that is then presented to the President.
CRS evaluated whether giving individual Members of Congress the
authority to demand agency action would violate that requirement.
Here is what CRS found: ``It could be argued that imbuing certain
Members with the authority to demand that an agency prepare a report
under section 12 is an action of sufficient legislative character and
effect as to trigger the bicameralism and presentment requirements of
article I.''
CRS also found there is a ``tenable argument that the provisions of
section 12 raise constitutional concerns of the magnitude addressed in
Chadha.''
Congress certainly has a legitimate interest in conducting oversight
of agency actions. It is appropriate for House committees to request
information about agency rules and how they can be improved, but
committees already have the opportunity to conduct that type of
oversight.
We don't need to require in legislation that an agency conduct an
entirely new cost-benefit analysis for potentially every rule on the
books at the whim of individual Members of Congress. CRS notes that
Congress could conduct these reviews as part of its oversight
prerogative.
CRS goes on to note, however, that if these reviews were considered
part of congressional oversight rather than an exercise of legislative
authority, they ``would leave open significant and unresolved questions
regarding the parameters of congressional oversight authority.'' These
questions are significant enough to warrant stripping this section from
the bill.
In addition, section 12 would threaten the ability of agencies to
carry out their missions. The more time an agency spends responding to
demands for rule reviews, the less time it is spending performing the
work it is supposed to be doing.
{time} 1500
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, a cost-benefit analysis prior to the
implementation of a regulation requires a number of assumptions that
make an accurate analysis difficult, if not impossible.
H.R. 50 allows committee chairmen and ranking members to ask for the
retrospective reviews of specific regulations.
I think there needs to be a degree of deference and some respect for
the idea that it is for committee chairmen and ranking members, both
sides of the aisle, not just based on some whim. I think it is
offensive to suggest that it be just some whimsical thing.
This allows an important check on any pre-implementation cost-benefit
analysis, and these retrospective reviews better clarify the true costs
of regulation. Even President Obama supports retrospective reviews and
issued an executive order requiring agencies to conduct them.
More importantly, retrospective reviews work. In April of 2014, the
GAO issued a report on retrospective reviews at 22 executive agencies.
That report found that more than 90 percent of retrospective regulation
reviews led the agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulation
text--90 percent.
However, the pace of retrospective review is much slower than
planned, and the 22 agencies reviewed by the GAO had plans to conduct
more than 650 retrospective reviews but had only completed 246 of them
as of August of 2013.
As you can see, the agencies are already doing this work. It is good
to go back and review. We shouldn't be afraid of that. We should
encourage it.
This provision in the bill simply allows Congress to work with
agencies to prioritize regulatory areas most important to the American
taxpayer. We need to maintain the ability to make such requests, and I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have
on this side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend.
Mr. Chairman, I think we do have something to be concerned about with
this provision of the bill, and I rise enthusiastically to support Mr.
Cummings' amendment. He has raised serious issues about the
constitutional nature of this provision which could take down the whole
bill.
I was working in the United States Senate at the time of the Chadha
rendering by the Supreme Court, and it is crystal clear. It is crystal
clear to me that this retrospective provision, empowering Congress,
tantamount to a
[[Page H783]]
legislative veto, though we don't call it that, is an encroachment on
executive authority, and will be so found by courts.
Therefore, I think it is prudent for this body to adopt the Cummings
amendment and clear that constitutional cloud that hangs over H.R. 50.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, that is some good creative thinking right
there. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
One of the things that we have to keep in mind, the President is the
President. You are talking about 100 Members of Congress, as opposed to
the President. The President has done this, and the chairman admits
that they are already behind.
So now what we are going to do is bring in a whole new 100 people, at
a whim, to say, We don't like something and let's pull it back.
No. I think we are better than that, and I think it does have
constitutional problems. I think enough is being done, and I am glad to
hear somebody giving the President some credit for something. The fact
is that he has been most aggressive in this area.
I don't think that this provision is needed, and I would urge Members
to vote in favor of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to highlight, again, that when there was a report done by the
GAO, they found that 90 percent of retrospective regulation reviews led
agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulatory text.
All this does is ask for a report. It doesn't repeal it. It is not
going to slow it down. What it does is ask for a report. That is an
important process to go through, and when we have gone through it in
the past, 90 percent of the time, according to the GAO, it has led to
revisions that are important.
It is very difficult to understand what is going to happen on the
front end. All we are asking for in this bill is let's consult with the
individuals, the property owners, others who are affected, and then, if
we need a report, and we are going to limit that to chairmen and
ranking members, that is an appropriate thing to do.
What are we afraid of? We are just trying to get transparency to the
issue and be able to highlight this.
I worry, when you talk about the numbers of reviews and how far
behind, it just shows the massive numbers of regulations that go
through this process. We should be able to review those. There are real
Americans that are affected by this every day.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Connolly
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part C of House Report 114-14.
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:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 14. SUNSET OF UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT AND
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT AMENDMENTS IF GDP
GROWTH FAILS TO INCREASE AT AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE
OF 5 PERCENT OR MORE.
(a) Sunset.--If the real gross domestic product of the
United States fails to increase at an average annual rate of
5 percent or more for the first 4 calendar quarters occurring
after the date of the enactment of this Act, as determined
under subsection (b), then the amendments made by this Act to
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4; 2
U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 602 et seq.) are repealed.
(b) Determination of Growth of GDP.--For purposes of
subsection (a), the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall--
(1) calculate the average annual rate of growth of the real
gross domestic product for the first 4 calendar quarters
occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) submit to Congress a report containing such calculation
and such other information as the Director considers
appropriate, not later than 30 days after the end of the 4th
calendar quarter occurring after such date of enactment.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 78, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this
simple, clear amendment to H.R. 50. This amendment seeks to establish a
performance-based sunset mechanism stipulating that, in the event that
the average annual rate of real GDP growth remains below 5 percent over
the first 4 quarters occurring after the date of enactment, then the
statutory changes made by H.R. 50 are repealed because the bill will
have been proved to have been ineffective.
This amendment sets up a real world measurement and a sunset
mechanism that supporters and opponents, it seems to me, can support,
since it features the flexibility to ensure an optimal response to
whichever prediction of the impact of H.R. 50, positive or negative,
takes place over the year following enactment.
If the Unfunded Mandates Act, by lessening the independence of
independent regulatory agencies and strengthening the influence of the
private sector in the Federal rulemaking process, does, in fact, spur
the economic growth we have heard so much about to at least match the
average annual real GDP growth rates achieved during two
administrations, the Johnson and Kennedy administrations, and in the
last 2 quarters of this administration so far, what is the threat?
What are we afraid of?
However, if it fails to spur the promised economic growth to at least
achieve an average annual growth rate of 5 percent over the year
following the enactment of the law, then the statutory changes made by
H.R. 50 will be repealed.
Five percent is reasonable. It is a reasonable target goal when one
considers that, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real GDP
growth under the Obama economy reached 4.6 percent in the second
quarter and 5 percent in the fourth.
Why wouldn't we expect H.R. 50 to be able to sustain that growth rate
and, indeed, improve on it in the first full year after enactment?
Finally, I would note that, according to the preliminary estimate of
the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment would not increase
direct spending or reduce revenues, and I strongly urge all of the
Members in the body to adopt this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate my colleague
from Virginia. I appreciate his tenacity and good work on these issues
and on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
But I do have to suggest that if the economy is struggling, Federal
regulators should be extra concerned about imposing undue and
unnecessary costs on to the American public and the private sector job
creators.
H.R. 50 helps ensure that regulations that impose unfunded mandates
on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector are
fully analyzed and considered.
Keep in mind, we are focused here on unfunded mandates. This
amendment would repeal this helpful legislation if the GDP rate grows
at a rate of less than 5 percent. To me, this is counterproductive.
GDP is a deliberately broad measure of economic growth. The GDP does
not reflect the impact a regulatory mandate might have on a State or
local government or a portion of the private sector, nor does it
reflect the impact of regulations as a whole.
Ultimately, GDP growth is not a substitute for a sensible regulatory
analysis and process. I would argue that,
[[Page H784]]
regardless of GDP growth or reduction, we need to allow, particularly
these local governments, these tribal governments, these private
individuals--it is the little guy that has this unfunded mandate thrust
upon them that we have to review.
So repealing H.R. 50 if the GDP is failing to grow is contrary to the
very purpose of this bill and, therefore, I stand in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I would inquire of the Chair how much time remains on
this side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to say in response to my friend from Utah, also a neat
argument. All of a sudden we are now retreating from the economic
rationale for moving beyond unfunded mandates, for getting the hobnail-
booted government off the necks of business so jobs can grow and the
economy can just take off. Now, that is not really the purpose of this.
It is transparency and getting unfunded mandates exposed. I think that
is a fairly weak argument and justification for a bad bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment. The
legislation we are considering today has been sold by supporters as a
jobs bill. Give me a break.
This amendment simply says that if the economy doesn't improve the
way the bill's supporters say it will, then the bill will sunset. It is
as simple as that. The amendment would leave the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act untouched. This sunset provision would only impact the
changes made by this bill. For those reasons, I strongly support the
amendment.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a commonsense
amendment. I think it sets a metric that I would hope my friends on the
other side of the aisle would actually embrace so that we can see
whether a new piece of legislation is, in fact, working. It would allow
the bill to go into place for a whole year before that metric kicks in.
I think it is a commonsense amendment that actually gives us a chance
to see whether the philosophy undergirding this legislation is, indeed,
justified.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, to take a metric of the gross domestic
product, the entire economy, and then have that be the weighted factor
by what may happen to a dairy farmer, for instance, who is out there in
Utah or Kansas or Colorado is not the way that we should be determining
whether or not H.R. 50 is in place.
If the economy is waning, if the economy is decreasing, if our
production overall for our Nation is declining, that may be the very
key indicator that we have thrust too many unfunded mandates upon the
little guy, the dairy farmer, the person who has got a transmission
shop. It could be a whole host of things. It may be upon private
property owners. It could be--you name it.
Pretty much in this country, there are mandates that are thrust upon
people, and they feel like they have no ability, no understanding why
this happens. They don't feel like they have a voice in the process.
So I stand in opposition to this amendment. So, to the overall gross
economy, to say that we are just going to repeal that, H.R. 50, and get
rid of our ability to ask people to consult, ask the government
agencies to consult with local governments, to consult with private
individuals, to talk to small businesses, we are going to just get rid
of that because the economy is waning?
{time} 1515
I would argue that part of the reason our economy hasn't taken off is
there are too many unfunded mandates. The government imposes these, and
they don't have a full understanding of what is causing these people to
not hire more people, to invest more capital.
So I stand in opposition to this. I appreciate the gentleman who
offered it, but I stand in opposition to this amendment. I would urge
my colleagues a ``no'' vote.
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. 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 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 C of House Report
114-14 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Cummings of Maryland.
Amendment No. 3 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. 2 Offered by Mr. Cummings
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 245, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 61]
AYES--179
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)
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
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
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
NOES--245
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
[[Page H785]]
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
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
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
NOT VOTING--9
Chu (CA)
Duckworth
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Lee
Lofgren
Nunnelee
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)
{time} 1543
Messrs. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania, TURNER, HUELSKAMP, Mrs. BLACKBURN,
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana, and Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Mr. CLYBURN 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 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 249, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 62]
AYES--173
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)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
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
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
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
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
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
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
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
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 (FL)
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
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
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
NOT VOTING--11
Babin
Chu (CA)
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Gutierrez
Jackson Lee
Lee
Lofgren
Nunnelee
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1548
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, on roll call no. 62, Connolly Amendment, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted No.
[[Page H786]]
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Westmoreland) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, 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. 50)
to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing Federal
mandates, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 78,
he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House
with a further amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
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
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. BUSTOS. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Bustos moves to recommit the bill H.R. 50 to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 14. STOPPING SEXUAL PREDATORS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND
RAPE.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply to, limit, or restrict any Federal agency mandate or
action the purpose of which is to--
(1) protect students and children from a person who has
been convicted in any court of a sex offense against a minor;
(2) prevent domestic violence by stopping persons from
harassing, stalking, or threatening a spouse, family member,
an intimate partner, or the child of an intimate partner;
(3) prevent rape or sexual assault; or
(4) require criminal background checks for school or other
employees through a search of the National Crime Information
Center, the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System, or the National Sex Offender Public
Website.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It
will not delay or kill the bill or send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended.
This amendment, Mr. Speaker, preserves critical protections against
sexual and domestic violence. We must not be so eager to eliminate
regulations that we remove important protections that keep our
communities, our children, and our families safe from harm.
The underlying bill would essentially stop or bog down all
regulation. My amendment would provide exemptions from the bill so
there is no interruption in efforts to prevent sexual and domestic
violence.
This includes protecting children from convicted sex offenders and
preventing domestic violence, including stalking. It also addresses
rape and sexual assault and using Federal resources for background
checks for school employees.
On a personal note, before I came to Congress, I worked as an
investigative news reporter, and my husband has spent his entire 30-
year career in law enforcement and now serves as sheriff of Rock Island
County, Illinois. Between the two of us, we have come across far too
many disturbing and real-life stories of sexual and domestic violence.
I will always remember a case that I covered involving a little boy
named Jerry Nelson. He was a small, defenseless child who was murdered
in Henry County, Illinois, which is now in the congressional district
that I serve. I am going to repeat that last line because if you didn't
hear it, I hope you will take a listen here because this is what we are
talking about in this amendment.
When I was a news reporter, a case I remember most involved a 3-year-
old child named Jerry Nelson. He was small. He was defenseless. He
lived in an area called Henry County, Illinois, which is now the
central part of the congressional district I serve.
He was beaten. He was abused. He was terribly battered by his
mother's boyfriend, and this happened across the Mississippi River
where I live but in the State of Iowa.
When Jerry's family moved across the Mississippi River into the State
of Illinois, Iowa did not share its case file--despite having
investigated this--with the Illinois authorities, and they were not
require to do so.
There was no mechanism in place for sharing the information. Jerry's
abuser would eventually sexually molest him and then murder him when he
was just 3 years old. At that time, why this was so emotional for me is
because he was the exact same age as my youngest child who today is 24
years old.
When doctors examined little Jerry Nelson's body, they found more
than 20 bruises, a broken clavicle, and brain injuries consistent with
falling from a three-story building onto concrete.
My commonsense amendment that I am telling you about right now would
help prevent more children like Jerry from becoming victims of heinous
crimes and unimaginable trauma. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the body, thank the
Speaker, and the process by which we did this. This bill came up in
regular order in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We
had a full and complete markup. That was followed by going to the Rules
Committee.
Every single amendment that was offered at the Rules Committee was
made in order, two Democrat amendments as well as the Republican
amendment. We had good and lively debate about those, and we just voted
on those amendments. I appreciate that.
From my heart, I will tell you that I look forward to working with
the gentlewoman from Illinois and everybody else in this body to attack
and go after--defend the innocent and make sure that we attack domestic
violence because it is so prevalent in every aspect of our society, but
I would suggest to you that this is the wrong amendment.
What this does, it does not force the Federal Government to actually
work with the individuals that are affected. What H.R. 50 does, what
this bill does is to make sure that the Federal Government consults
with individuals, it consults with small businesses, those that are
affected by mandates.
I want the Federal Government--in fact, I would love to codify the
idea that the Federal Government in this case and what you offer in the
motion shouldn't talk to these people, they should talk to them. We
want them to talk to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children. They should be the first people that they call. If you want
to know what is happening in this country, go talk to the individuals
who are affected by this.
What this legislation, H.R. 50, does is to make sure that individuals
are asked before; it makes sure that nothing is repealed. We don't get
to unilaterally repeal things. I heard the word ``repeal.''
No, there are reports that we need to access and look at, and so if
we truly want to get after domestic violence and these heinous crimes--
these awful, hideous crimes--then you want to vote in favor of H.R. 50
and make sure that the Federal Government does go and consult with the
victims of crime.
I oppose this motion to recommit and vote in favor of H.R. 50 by Dr.
Foxx.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1600
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
[[Page H787]]
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.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
February 4, 2015, on page H787, the following appeared: the ayes
appeared to have it.
The online version should be corrected to read: the noes
appeared to have it.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Recorded Vote
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 239, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 63]
AYES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
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
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
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
Peterson
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
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--239
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
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
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
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
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
NOT VOTING--10
Bass
Chu (CA)
Duckworth
Gutierrez
Lee
Lofgren
Nunnelee
Roe (TN)
Schock
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1606
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. LOWEY was allowed to speak out of order.)
Moment of Silence and Prayer for the Valhalla, New York, Commuter Train
Accident Victims, Their Families, and the Community
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, a commuter train struck
an automobile at a grade crossing in Valhalla, New York, resulting in
the deaths of six people and many others injured.
I stand on the House floor today with my colleagues to call for a
moment of silence to honor those who lost their lives in this tragic
accident and offer sincere condolences to the families of the victims,
pray for the full recovery of those injured, and thank our first
responders for quickly arriving at the scene to help others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250,
noes 173, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 64]
AYES--250
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
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
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
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
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
[[Page H788]]
Perry
Peterson
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
Sanchez, Loretta
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 (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--173
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)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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.
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--10
Chu (CA)
Conyers
Duckworth
Gutierrez
Lee
Lofgren
Murphy (PA)
Nunnelee
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1615
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 64 had I
been present, I would have voted aye.
Stated against:
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently did not vote during Roll
Call #64 on passage of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2015. Had I voted, I would have voted ``nay.''
personal explanation
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House
chamber for votes on Wednesday, February 4, 2015.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 59,
and ``nay'' on roll call vote 60.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 61,
``yea'' on roll call vote 62, and ``yea'' on roll call vote 63.
I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call vote 64 in strong opposition
to H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of
2015.
Personal Explanation
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today because
of a serious illness in my family. Had I been present, I would have
voted:
Rollcall #59--YEA
Rollcall #60--AYE
Rollcall #61--NO
Rollcall #62--NO
Rollcall #63--NO
Rollcall #64--AYE
____________________