[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

                          ____________________