[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 20 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H816-H834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous materials on H.R. 527.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
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. 527.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0910
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. 527) to amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly
known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis
of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Westmoreland in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Small Business.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Good morning, Mr. Conyers. It is good to see you.
Six long years into the Obama administration, and notwithstanding
some fleeting, recent signs, jobs have yet to recover from the
recession. Wages also have not recovered, and the rate of new business
startups has not recovered as well.
Instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historical
levels. Real wages have fallen. Dependency on government assistance has
increased. Our economy is failing to give enough hardworking Americans
the confidence they need to start new small businesses and create new
jobs.
At the root of our problem are, more than anything else, the endless
drain to Washington of hard-earned income that working people and small
businesses need to turn things around in their homes and communities
and Washington's endless placement of regulatory roadblocks in the path
of opportunity and growth.
That regulatory burden hits small businesses especially hard. Small
businesses generate 63 percent of net new private sector jobs and
employ nearly half of America's private sector workers; yet they have
to pay significantly more to comply with Federal regulations than do
larger employers.
Poll after poll has demonstrated that the level of Federal
regulations coming from Washington is at the top of the list of
obstacles faced by America's small businesses, our top job creators.
This is not fair, and it is exactly the wrong burden to place on
small businesses as this Nation struggles to produce a true jobs and
wages recovery. Congress can and should act to free small businesses of
the burdens and waste associated with excessive Federal regulations so
that more jobs will be available to Americans trying to make a better
life for themselves and their families.
That is why prompt passage of the Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act is so important. This legislation will,
for the first time in nearly 20 years, overhaul the laws that govern
how Federal regulators should consider--and minimize--the adverse
impacts of new regulations on small businesses.
Primarily, the bill reinforces the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It
only requires agencies to do what current law tries to achieve and what
common sense dictates should be done.
{time} 0915
However, current law is beset by loopholes, and those loopholes must
be closed. That is what the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility
Improvements Act, at long last, does.
[[Page H817]]
For example, the bill mandates that all agencies, not just the
current few, work with small business review panels early in the
rulemaking process for major rules, before agencies become entrenched
in their proposed paths, to help small businesses better and more
effectively point out to agencies what is the best path. The bill also
requires agencies to assess not just the direct effects of new
regulation on small businesses but also indirect effects, which often
can be substantial.
The bill also, for the first time, authorizes the Small Business
Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to be the one consistent
authority on regulatory flexibility requirements the law imposes on all
agencies. This will, at long last, curb the agencies' tendencies to
interpret the law to suit their own individual whims and will force
agencies to focus on the common needs of small business.
The minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen?
Small businesses will have a real chance to be heard before agencies,
effectively, make up their minds. Agencies will have better information
upon which to tailor their regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on
small businesses. Agencies will have fewer opportunities to escape
requirements to hear those businesses and gather that better
information, and small businesses will be freer than they have been in
decades to devote their resources to what they do best--create the new
jobs, products, and services that can drive the economy forward to true
and lasting recovery.
The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act recognizes
that economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not
regulators. It represents a critical means to convert the recognition
into reality.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 3, 2015.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 527, the Small
Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
H.R. 527, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of
2015
Summary: H.R. 527 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) to expand the number of rules covered by the RFA
and to require agencies to perform additional analysis of
regulations that affect small businesses. The legislation
also would provide new authorities to the Small Business
Administration's (SBA's) Office of Advocacy to intervene and
provide support for agency rulemaking. Finally, H.R. 527
would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
report on the implementation of the legislation.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 527 would cost $55
million over the 2015-2020 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary funds. Enacting the bill could affect direct
spending by agencies not funded through annual
appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by
those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 527
would not affect revenues.
H.R. 527 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not
affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
If any federal agencies increase their mandatory fees to
offset the costs of implementing the additional analysis
required by the bill, H.R. 527 would increase the cost of an
existing mandate on private entities to pay those fees. CBO
expects that if such mandatory fees are increased as a result
of the bill, the additional cost of the mandate in any one
year would fall well below the annual threshold established
in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2015,
adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of H.R. 527 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions
370 (commerce and housing credit), 800 (general government),
and all budget functions that include funding for agencies
that issue regulations affecting small businesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2015-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 3 9 12 12 12 12 60
Estimated Outlays.............................. 2 7 10 12 12 12 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of Estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted in fiscal year 2015, that the
necessary amounts will be appropriated each year, and that
spending will follow historical patterns for similar
activities.
CBO is unaware of any comprehensive information on the
current level of spending for regulatory activities
governmentwide. However, according to the Congressional
Research Service, federal agencies issue 3,000 to 4,000 final
rules each year. Most rules, regardless of size, are
promulgated by the Departments of Transportation, Homeland
Security, and Commerce, and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Most major rules (those with an estimated
economic impact on the economy of more than $100 million per
year) are issued by the Departments of Health and Human
Services and Agriculture, and EPA.
H.R. 527 would broaden the definition of a ``rule'' for
rulemaking purposes to include agency guidance documents and
policy statements. The bill also would expand the scope of
the regulatory analysis for proposed and final rules to
include an examination of indirect economic effects on small
businesses and a more detailed analysis of the possible
economic consequences of the rule for small businesses. The
legislation defines indirect economic effects as any impact
that is reasonably foreseeable. The legislation also would
require agencies to prepare reports on the cumulative
economic impact on small businesses of new and existing
regulations.
Implementing H.R. 527 would increase the amount of
regulatory analysis that agencies would need to prepare, and
it would expand the role of the SBA's Office of Advocacy and
the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the rulemaking process.
Finally, the legislation would require more federal agencies
to use panels of experts to evaluate regulations and to
prepare reports on the economic impact of proposed
regulations on small business.
Information from OIRA, SBA, and some federal agencies
indicates that the new requirements would increase the cost
to issue a few hundred of the thousands of federal
regulations issued annually. Based on that information, CBO
estimates that administrative costs in some regulatory
agencies, the SBA's Office of Advocacy, and OIRA would
eventually increase by a total of about $12 million annually,
subject to the availability of appropriated funds. We expect
that it would take about three years to reach that level of
effort. The GAO report on the impact of the legislation of
the Office of Advocacy would cost less than $500,000 to
complete, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. Enacting H.R 527 could affect direct spending by
agencies not funded through annual appropriations; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that
any net increase in spending by those agencies would not be
significant.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 527
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
If any federal agencies increase their mandatory fees to
offset the costs of implementing the additional analysis
required by the bill, H.R. 527 would increase the cost of an
existing mandate on private entities to pay those fees. CBO
expects that if such mandatory fees are increased as a result
of the bill, the additional cost of the mandate in any one
year would fall well below the annual threshold established
in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2015,
adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Matthew Pickford
and Susan Willie; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal
Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector:
Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Theresa A. Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
[[Page H818]]
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC, January 29, 2015.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing to you concerning the
bill H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility
Improvements Act of 2015. The legislation falls within Rule X
(q) jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business.
In the interest of permitting the Committee on the
Judiciary to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of
this important bill, I am willing to waive the right of the
Committee on Small Business to sequential referral. I do so
with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the
bill the Committee on Small Business does not waive any
future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X (q)
jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name
members of this Committee to any conference committee which
is named to consider the legislation.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
527 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this issue and
others between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Steve Chabot,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, January 29, 2015.
Hon. Steve Chabot,
Chairman, House Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chabot, Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 527, the ``Small Business Regulatory Flexibility
Improvements Act of 2015.'' As you noted, the Committee on
Small Business was granted an additional referral of the
bill.
I am most appreciative of your decision to discharge the
Committee on Small Business from further consideration of
H.R. 527 so that it could proceed expeditiously to the House
floor. I acknowledge that although you waived formal
consideration of the bill, the Committee on Small Business is
in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the subject matter
contained in those provisions of the bill that fall within
your Rule X jurisdiction. I would support your effort to seek
appointment of an appropriate number of conferees on any
House-Senate conference involving this legislation.
I will include a copy of our letters in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 527.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility
Improvements Act, threatens to substantially undermine agencies'
abilities to effectively regulate areas such as consumer health and
product safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and
financial industry misconduct.
Under the guise of protecting small businesses from allegedly
burdensome regulatory requirements, this bill is just another attempt
to prevent regulatory agencies from promulgating regulations that
promote and protect the health and safety of Americans, overwhelm
regulatory agencies with unnecessary and costly analysis, and give
well-financed businesses and antiregulatory organizations even more
opportunities to thwart the rulemaking process.
This explains why the administration has threatened to veto this
legislation, stating that the bill would seriously undermine the
ability of agencies to execute their statutory mandates and would
impede the ability of agencies to provide the public with basic
protections.
It also explains why many of the Nation's leading consumer, labor,
and environmental organizations have expressed similar concerns about
this ``dangerous'' measure, including the AFL-CIO, the American Lung
Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, the United Auto
Workers, and the National Women's Law Center.
One of my principal concerns about this bill is that it could
jeopardize America's health and safety. Our Federal agencies are
charged with promulgating regulations that impact virtually every
aspect of our lives, including the air we breathe, the water we drink,
the food we eat, the cars we drive, and even the toys we give our
children.
Small businesses, like all businesses, provide services and goods
that also affect our lives. It makes no difference to a victim who
breathes contaminated air or who drinks poisoned water whether the
hazards were caused by a small or a large business. The far-reaching
legislation before us today would undermine the ability of Federal
agencies to quickly respond to emergent health and safety concerns.
Section 5 of the bill, for example, repeals the authority under the
current law that allows an agency to waive or delay the initial
analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act in response to
an emergency that makes timely compliance impracticable. So, if there
is a widespread E. coli outbreak or an imminent environmental disaster
that could be quickly addressed through regulation, this bill says:
Don't worry. Don't rush. Let's have the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
decide.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I hear constantly when we are on the floor with bills, which
sometimes are bipartisan and sometimes are not, that the President says
he is going to veto them. I hope that is not the case, because when it
comes to saying that the President is going to veto and his actually
doing it, they are two different things. I hope the President works
with us on this.
Again, we extend our hand across the aisle here and to the other side
of the Capitol to simply say to the regulators that this bill does not
want to regulate the regulators. It wants the regulators to use common
sense and to get input from the American people--the middle class--and
from the people who create jobs, the small businesses, to see what they
have to say.
I worked in a factory before I went to college and law school, and I
worked my way up to mid-level management. When we did things, I brought
in everyone--the people who even worked the machinery. We talked about
things, and we resolved many, many things, but we got input from
everyone.
As far as letters from people who support the bill, I have a list of
159 names and businesses. This is dated February 3, 2015, from A to Z--
from the Adhesive and Sealant Council to woodworking machinery
associations. All of these 159 small businesses support this
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to
H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
I oppose this legislation, which would paralyze agency rulemaking
through unworkable, complex requirements while aggrandizing the powers
of the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy with broad
authority to act as the gatekeeper of our Nation's regulatory system.
H.R. 527 would allow for large, regulated industries to manipulate
the regulatory system in their favor while delaying or blocking
critical safeguards to safeguard our Nation's food supply, environment,
and workforce.
That is why the American Sustainable Business Council, a coalition of
partner organizations representing over 200,000 businesses and more
than 325,000 business professionals, opposes this legislation. This
coalition notes that H.R. 527 would erode ``the operational capacity of
regulatory agencies to do their jobs,'' allowing for ``the largest
firms to further dominate the marketplace.'' In other words, H.R. 527
is a thinly-veiled handout to large corporations.
Mr. Chairman, Americans support smart regulation across party lines
but not deregulation. Over 70 percent of Americans support strong rules
to ensure an open Internet. By a 2-1 margin, Americans across the
political spectrum support rules to address climate change by limiting
emissions from coal-fired plants. Sixty percent of Americans support
the strict regulation of financial institutions, tougher enforcement,
and remain deeply concerned about dangerous financial practices.
These are the same rules in the crosshairs of the radical
deregulatory agenda of my Republican colleagues.
Dangerous policies like H.R. 527 echo the same laissez-faire rhetoric
of deregulation that led to the Great Depression and the Great
Recession. H.R.
[[Page H819]]
527 is more of the same. Another handout for the largest corporate
interests, that is what this is. It is another bill designed to
deregulate industries instead of to promote actual governance in order
to deceive Americans through fuzzy math and untried and unfounded
rhetoric.
Mr. Chairman, we need real solutions to help real people. We need
legislation that creates middle class security and opportunity, and we
need sensible regulations that protect American families from financial
ruin, that encourage competition, and that bring predatory financial
practices to an end.
We need legislation that brings the United States in conformity with
the rest of the world's employment policies by guaranteeing paid sick
leave and parental leave--I should say the world's industrialized
economies' employment practices. According to the Rutgers Center for
Women and Work, paid family leave increases wages for women with
children while saving the Federal Government funds that would otherwise
be allocated to assistance programs.
We need legislation that increases our global competitiveness by
creating an affordable higher education. Strong evidence from a
Department of Education report roundly demonstrates that investing in
our education system expands job opportunities, boosts America's
competitiveness, and supports the kind of income mobility that is
fundamental to a growing economy.
In other words, what we need is actual governance that helps middle
class families, that grows the economy, and that promotes international
competitiveness.
What we don't need is yet another deregulatory bill that would
increase complexity in our regulatory system while placing a finger on
the scales in favor of corporations and against the public interest. I
ask that my colleagues oppose H.R. 527.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have been doing some research over these couple of days. This
administration alone has implemented over 75,000 pages of new
regulations. I just read some figures earlier on this morning that, if
we get rid of this ridiculous regulation--and I am not saying all
regulation; we do need oversight regulation--almost $1 trillion a year
will be added to the economy and almost 1 million people will be added
to work on a yearly basis. This is just excellent stuff.
I want to give you an example from my district, Pennsylvania's 10th
District. I live in a little village called Cogan Station outside of
Williamsport, which is the home of Little League World Series Baseball.
I live in the middle of five farms, and I have been there for 15 years.
Pursuant to the Navigable Waters Act, the Army Corps of Engineers and
the EPA have said that, if it rains and if a puddle forms on the farm--
in an attempt for this administration to get more control over our
lives--because of the Navigable Waters Act, the EPA and the Army Corps
have control now over that farm and can shut it down.
{time} 0930
Now, I have been there for 15 years in the middle of these five
farms, and I have yet to see as much as a rowboat go through. So this
is just an example of how ridiculous this legislation can get.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I have the distinct honor to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my good friend, to speak
on behalf of us.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chair, here in Washington, D.C., I believe we have
too many people working on K Street looking out for Wall Street when we
should be, instead, fighting for Main Street. It is our Main Street
businesses, our small businesses, that are the heart and soul of our
economy and without which there will be no economic recovery.
America has slogged through 6 years of a lackluster economy in part
because our hardworking small business men and women are strangled by
this administration's overregulation. During my 267 town hall meetings
throughout my district in the last 4 years, the number one complaint is
this: there is too much regulation on small business from faceless,
nameless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who don't understand the
needs of rural America.
It is time for some red tape relief. It is time for some regulatory
certainty. It is time to free up Main Street so they can kick-start our
economy and get America back to work. As an active member of the
Committee on Small Business, I encourage my colleagues to join me and
millions and millions of small business entrepreneurs all across
America and pass this bill today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to continue our discussion on this side.
Another problem with this bill, my colleagues, is that it will waste
millions of taxpayer dollars by forcing agencies to redirect their
scarce resources to meet the bill's burdensome compliance requirements.
Section 6 of the bill, for example, would require agencies to review
not only all rules currently in effect, but, in addition, all guidance
documents in effect as of the bill's date of enactment. Now, we are
talking about thousands of pages of regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations and several hundred thousand guidance documents.
So, what is to be gained by that?
Thus, it is no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office estimated
that it would cost $45 million over a 5-year period to implement the
new requirements imposed under a substantively similar bill considered
in the last Congress. Rather than burdening agencies responsible for
protecting our health and safety, we should be exploring constructive
ways to help small business comply with these regulations.
Finally, this bill will do little to help small businesses, while
simultaneously giving corporate interests increased control over the
rulemaking process. The bill's expansion in section 8 of judicial
review to include challenges to the adequacy of regulatory flexibility
analysis would open the door to endless litigation by well-funded
antiregulatory business interests who could challenge agency compliance
with the legislation's numerous vague, speculative, and cumbersome
analytical and other requirements.
I think we get the drift here, where they are going and where they
are coming from. I share my colleagues' belief that small business
plays an important role in our economy, but this bill does nothing to
alleviate the burden, the purported burden on small entities of
complying with Federal regulations. In fact, it includes no provision
that offers assistance to small entities, whether through subsidies,
government-guaranteed loans, preferential tax treatment for small
firms, or fully funded compliance assistance offices. Instead, the bill
merely aggrandizes the power of the professional lobbying class in
Washington, creating opportunities for a well-funded business interest
to intervene in the process.
This is a very harmful bill that puts the health and safety of all
Americans at risk, while adding nothing to the efficiency or cost-
effectiveness of agency rulemaking. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this dangerous legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I understand the responsibility of having oversight over any
business, but let me give you a couple of examples, again, from my
district where a small community bank, who is the primary lender of
small businesses, instead of hiring more tellers to expand the business
and provide better service for their small business clients, had to
hire three people just to review and keep up with regulatory reform
that applies to large national and international banks who are lending
hundreds of millions of dollars.
That is not the case with smalltown banks. They are lending money to
the young man and woman who got a job, saved some money, want to buy a
car, and have to go to the bank and say: Can you lend me $10,000? The
paperwork that the bank has to go through to do that is costing jobs
and costing our economy.
I just got a call yesterday from one of my constituents. The Amish in
my district were putting a roof on a small barn they had. OSHA stopped
by and
[[Page H820]]
shut it down and fined the Amish because they didn't have helmets on.
They only had their straw hats. So he put them out of work for a couple
of weeks. They had to pay a fine, and then they have to go buy helmets
to put a small roof on a small barn.
I have a constituent from my district who has a little grocery store,
and he just had a shipment of bread delivered. It just so happened that
an inspector was there, and the bread was brought in through the dock
door and set next to, inside the dock door. He was fined because the
bread, which is wrapped and on racks, was sitting too close to the dock
door.
These are the types of regulation to which we are referring that
crush jobs and are killing this economy. One of the inspectors was
asked: Why are you doing this?
The inspector simply said, and according to my constituent,
arrogantly said: Because I can.
That is no way for an employee of the United States Government to be
talking to someone who helps pay his wages.
So with that, Mr. Chair, this is a good piece of legislation. This is
common sense, and this is very simple. Let's make the regulators do
more with less. There are no agencies or departments in the Federal
Government that can tell me that they are running as efficiently as
they possibly can.
My good friend, the ranking member, said it is going to cost a great
deal to have this rule, this legislation, implemented and the
departments and agencies follow the rule. No. You know what the
departments and agencies have to do? They have to do just exactly what
small business operators throughout this country do: do more with less,
and put in a good, hard day's work.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 527, the Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015.
I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte as well as Chairman Marino for the
opportunity to work with them on this important piece of legislation.
Small businesses are critical to this country's success. They provide
a means for millions of workers and their families to attain the
American Dream. They employ one out of every two private sector workers
and create two of every three new private sector jobs.
There are over 926,000 small businesses in my home State of Ohio.
Small firms rarely have in-house legal departments or regulatory
compliance experts on staff. Often, it is the small business owner, the
individual running the business and meeting payroll, who also must keep
up with regulations and the payment of taxes.
Small manufacturers, retailers, and construction firms want to comply
with the law. However, when they divert resources to costly regulatory
compliance, they cannot hire workers or start new projects or make
other job creation investments.
If there is a way to find less expensive means to achieving
regulatory objectives of our agencies, small businesses could protect
the environment and workers and still create the good middle class jobs
that this country needs.
There is such a law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA, which
requires agencies to understand the costs to small businesses and find
less costly alternatives while meeting the regulatory missions required
by statute. However, despite admonitions by multiple Presidents,
including the current one, agencies continue to ignore the RFA.
The bill before us today, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, addresses a goal shared by
virtually all Republicans and some Democrats and will ensure that
agencies no longer ignore the law and craft more cost-effective
regulations. The bill will force agencies to analyze both direct and
reasonably foreseeable indirect effects of their rules, just as they
are required to do when promulgating major regulations that affect the
environment under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
{time} 0945
The bill provides for early input in the regulatory process so that
agencies do not craft regulations that are so cost prohibitive that
small businesses cannot comply, and seeks to ensure consistent
application of the RFA by all agencies through regulations written by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, a process first used to ensure that all
agencies performed adequate environmental impact statements under NEPA.
Even with the additional procedures, nothing in H.R. 527 will prevent
an agency from issuing a regulation. H.R. 527, to paraphrase President
Ronald Reagan, simply requires that agencies know before they regulate.
Common sense.
H.R. 527 will ensure that agencies adopt commonsense regulations that
achieve their objectives while reducing unnecessary burdens on our best
job creators, which are small businesses. About 70 percent of the jobs
that are created in our economy nowadays are created by small
businesses, after all. That is why the legislation has bipartisan
support, and over 150 associations representing the full range of small
businesses support passage of this legislation.
Mr. Chair, to fully understand how the bill will work, it is
important the committee report filed by the gentleman from Virginia be
read together with the committee report on the predecessor bill, H.R.
2542 filed in the 113th Congress by my predecessor as chairman of the
Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this very good
legislation, I believe, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Reducing the costs of regulations is a very important issue for small
businesses, and it is an issue that is always on their minds.
Complicated rules and duplicative requirements can create burdens for
small firms across a wide range of industries. Unchecked regulations
can reduce companies' profitability, causing them to reduce employment
and, in the worst cases, even go out of business.
It is for these very reasons that President Barack Obama has taken
strong actions. He has issued several broad-based executive orders on
rulemaking. Most importantly, he instructed agencies to conduct
retrospective review of their regulations. These reviews have resulted
in near-term cost savings to the U.S. economy of $10 billion.
He has always required agencies to estimate the costs and benefits of
regulations, consider less burdensome alternatives, and incorporate
those that are affected by regulations into the rulemaking process.
Taken together, these efforts are helping to rein in regulatory
costs, while ensuring that agencies can carry out their mission. It is
against this backdrop that we are considering the bill before us today.
Too often on the House floor legislation is painted as either being
totally perfect or completely awful. With this bill, neither of these
characterizations is appropriate. In fact, on many fronts, H.R. 527
contains several very positive provisions and will make a real
difference for small businesses.
Many of these provisions were contained in legislation that passed
out of the Small Business Committee when I was the chair. Together with
current Chairman Chabot, who was then the ranking member, we passed a
regulatory reform bill unanimously out of our committee.
For instance, the bill makes the agency's reg flex analyses more
detailed so that they cannot simply overlook their obligations to small
businesses. It also gives ``real teeth'' to periodic regulatory look-
backs, which require agencies to review outdated regulations that
remain on the books. Agencies will also be required to evaluate the
entire impact of their regulations, something that is long overdue. And
it cannot go without mention that the bill brings the IRS under the
purview of the RFA. This is a real improvement for small firms, who
will undoubtedly benefit from greater scrutiny of complex and
burdensome tax rules. These are all constructive changes that will
bring real relief to small businesses.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, there are other items in this
legislation that
[[Page H821]]
leave you scratching your head. Adding so many new agencies to the
panel process is a recipe for disaster. Such a dramatic change will
require new bureaucratic processes, more staff, and more paperwork.
It must be ironic for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
that this bill attempts to reduce Federal regulation by dramatically
expanding the role and scope of government.
It also applies reg flex to land management plans, something I have
never heard small businesses complain about in my 17 years on the
committee. Doing so will enable corporate interests to more readily
challenge land use decisions, which could have adverse consequences for
the environmental stewardship of public lands. The reality is that the
RFA was just not intended to cover these types of actions, and it
should not do so going forward.
Another head-scratcher is the creation of another office of size
standard within the Small Business Administration. The SBA already has
one and does not need two. There is simply no reason to create this
bureaucratic duplication. I think both sides of the aisle would agree
that, during a time of fiscal constraint, we do not need to be wasting
money on a new office when it already exists in the very same agency.
Finally, it is important to note that the Office of Advocacy's
footprint has traditionally been minimal, with a budget of $9 million
and 46 employees. According to CBO, its budget would have to
potentially double to handle the new responsibilities of H.R. 527.
CBO also notes that the private sector could also face increased
costs. Federal agencies will likely charge the private sector higher
fees to carry out the new responsibilities under this bill.
Simply put, now is not the time to make costly statutory leaps when
smaller steps are more appropriate.
It is important to remember that tinkering with our regulatory system
will not turn the economy around and create jobs that we need in our
communities. In order to make real inroads, we need to, instead,
provide businesses with the capital they need to start up and grow
through affordable lending and getting more customers through their
doors. The best way to achieve that is by increasing the Federal
minimum wage.
In the end, legislation such as this detracts us from the real task
at hand: creating real jobs through substantive progrowth policies.
So in conclusion, there are some good and some not so good things in
this bill. I want to acknowledge the effort by the bill's managers, but
in the end, it is not something that I can support, given the
imposition of too many questionable policies. However, I want to thank
Chairman Chabot for always being open to discussions, and I look
forward to continuing our dialogue on this legislation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Knight), who is a new member of the Committee on Small
Business.
Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 527, to
grant long-overdue relief from Federal regulations for small business
owners.
This issue is especially important to me as a Representative from
California. As of 2012, California had more small businesses and
employees than any other State, according to the Small Business
Association.
As I understand it, this act does not stop regulation. It just asks
for some common sense. When we are looking at small business, all we
want is for them to make money, morally and ethically, so that they can
expand, so that they can hire, so that they can produce for our
country. Well, this is a step in the right direction. Analyzing direct
and indirect impacts is something that we should want from our
government, federally and statewide.
Many Americans just want to work. The best way Congress can help is
cutting some of the burdensome red tape and letting job creators do
what they do best--and maybe letting us get out of the way.
Instead of making small businesses spend thousands of dollars and
hundreds of hours trying to understand and comply with regulations that
might not help, we should let them focus on getting Americans back to
work.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Hardy), who is also a new member of the Committee on Small
Business.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my support for this
bipartisan effort to ensure that small businesses and their employees
are not overburdened by regulations.
As a former business owner, I know how government intrusion and
overregulation can increase costs, decrease efficiency, and ultimately
harm hardworking individuals and their families. These taxpayers
deserve a responsive government that is efficient, effective, and
accountable to them.
As we fight for an environment more favorable to job creation,
Federal agencies cannot be allowed to bypass their obligation to
measure the direct and indirect economic effects regulations have on
businesses. Ultimately, these businesses--the economic engines of our
communities--should have the freedom to pursue safe, responsible
opportunities unhampered by burdensome rulemaking and red tape.
As a result, communities and businesses, like those represented by
the Nevada Manufacturers Association, will thrive. That is why, Mr.
Chairman, I stand alongside my colleagues from both sides of the aisle
to cosponsor this bill.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Curbelo), who is also a new member of the Small Business
Committee.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank the chairman for being a strong
advocate for our Nation's emerging entrepreneurs. I look forward to
serving under your leadership on the Small Business Committee.
Mr. Chairman, our local businesses employ our friends and neighbors,
helping them pay their bills and provide a better life for themselves
and their families.
When we talk about helping our local businesses, it is not just about
the entrepreneurs. It is also about helping the workers that depend on
them for their paychecks. It is not just about strengthening Main
Street; it is also about keeping our neighbors strong and prosperous.
We should never forget the vital role that our local businesses play in
our communities.
The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act upholds
this commitment. Current law requires an analysis to determine if a new
rule could have ``significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.'' Unfortunately, our government agencies have failed
to comply with the law's spirit.
Among its provisions, the underlying legislation targets loopholes
agencies use to avoid Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements. It also
requires agencies to include assessments on the cumulative impacts a
new rule may have on small businesses.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CHABOT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Now is the time for us to focus on creating well-paying jobs for our
communities. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Since its enactment in 1980, the Regulatory Flexibility Act has
reduced the burden of Federal rules on small businesses. It has evolved
over time to include new tools, expanding its purview, and making a
real difference for entrepreneurs across the country.
With this important role in mind, the legislation before us makes
some essential changes, such as requiring more robust reviews of
existing regulations and ensuring that new rules are more thoroughly
examined. This improvement will give small firms a greater voice, while
reducing the compliance costs they face in so many facets of their
business; however, in other areas, the bill goes too far.
At a time of mountainous deficits and growing taxpayer anger at how
tone-deaf Congress has become, H.R. 527 will dramatically expand the
Federal bureaucracy at a cost of nearly $60 million.
[[Page H822]]
{time} 1000
It also turns the SBA's Office of Advocacy into another
superregulator, giving it unprecedented authority to issue regulations
and greatly increase its role into judicial proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want people to think that I do not appreciate
the fine work that the Office of Advocacy does on behalf of small
businesses, but what this bill does is setting them up for failure.
And with all these new powers, it does nothing to pay for it.
Instead, it leaves taxpayers with just another bill.
While it is important to empower small businesses, this is not the
best and most cost-effective way to do it. In fact, there is no clear
estimate of how much savings small businesses will actually receive as
a result of this legislation.
The truth is, there are better ways to accomplish these very
objectives but without the extravagance of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
Mr. Chairman, too often, agencies craft one-size-fits-all regulations
that do not account for the impact on small businesses. It is our job
to remember that what affects small businesses also affects families
that depend on those small businesses.
Agencies can still achieve their regulatory objectives while creating
smarter, more narrowly-tailored regulations that are sensitive to small
businesses.
Some claim that agencies are already doing what the RFA requires--
outreach to small business and assessment of economic impacts. If that
is the case, agencies should have no problem meeting the new
requirements of this legislation. It simply ensures that agencies
comply with the letter and spirit of the RFA, as President Obama stated
in a memorandum to agencies on January 18, 2011.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 527, the
Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
Madam Chair, for too long, small businesses have had to conform to a
``one size fits all'' approach. The intent of the original law, which
was passed in 1980, was to lessen the burden on small businesses when
conforming to regulatory issues.
Since that time Federal Agencies have abused certain loopholes in the
codes, to enforce often arbitrary costs to those businesses. These
additional expenditures are far too often the difference between a
small business thriving or going under.
I know that in the Territory of American Samoa, our local economy is
absolutely dependent upon small businesses and their success. This
legislation will enable those who own small businesses across the
nation and the territories to have a greater degree of certainty when
planning for the future of their business, by allowing for input into
the regulatory process from the business owners themselves. This
legislation will also require those rule making agencies to regularly
review the regulations that are already on the books and what impact
they are having small businesses.
Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Chabot and the Small Business
Committee staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor,
and I firmly voice my support for H.R. 527, the Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act and urge my colleagues in the
House to also support this important measure.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Jenkins of Kansas). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of an amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-3. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 527
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 ``Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF RULES COVERED BY THE
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Rule.--The term `rule' has the meaning given such
term in section 551(4) of this title, except that such term
does not include a rule pertaining to the protection of the
rights of and benefits for veterans or a rule of particular
(and not general) applicability relating to rates, wages,
corporate or financial structures or reorganizations thereof,
prices, facilities, appliances, services, or allowances
therefor or to valuations, costs or accounting, or practices
relating to such rates, wages, structures, prices,
appliances, services, or allowances.''.
(b) Inclusion of Rules With Indirect Effects.--Section 601
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Economic impact.--The term `economic impact' means,
with respect to a proposed or final rule--
``(A) any direct economic effect on small entities of such
rule; and
``(B) any indirect economic effect (including compliance
costs and effects on revenue) on small entities which is
reasonably foreseeable and results from such rule (without
regard to whether small entities will be directly regulated
by the rule).''.
(c) Inclusion of Rules With Beneficial Effects.--
(1) Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection
(c) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking the first sentence and inserting ``Each initial
regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a detailed
description of alternatives to the proposed rule which
minimize any adverse significant economic impact or maximize
any beneficial significant economic impact on small
entities.''.
(2) Final regulatory flexibility analysis.--The first
paragraph (6) of section 604(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``minimize the significant
economic impact'' and inserting ``minimize the adverse
significant economic impact or maximize the beneficial
significant economic impact''.
(d) Inclusion of Rules Affecting Tribal Organizations.--
Paragraph (5) of section 601 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by inserting ``and tribal organizations (as
defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l))),'' after
``special districts,''.
(e) Inclusion of Land Management Plans and Formal
Rulemaking.--
(1) Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection
(a) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``or'' after ``proposed rule,''; and
(B) by inserting ``or publishes a revision or amendment to
a land management plan,'' after ``United States,''.
(2) Final regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection (a)
of section 604 of title 5, United States Code, is amended in
the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``or'' after ``proposed rulemaking,''; and
(B) by inserting ``or adopts a revision or amendment to a
land management plan,'' after ``section 603(a),''.
(3) Land management plan defined.--Section 601 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(10) Land management plan.--
``(A) In general.--The term `land management plan' means--
``(i) any plan developed by the Secretary of Agriculture
under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); and
``(ii) any plan developed by the Secretary of the Interior
under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712).
``(B) Revision.--The term `revision' means any change to a
land management plan which--
``(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph
(A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(5) of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1604(f)(5)); or
``(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph
(A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5-6 of title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation).
``(C) Amendment.--The term `amendment' means any change to
a land management plan which--
``(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph
(A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(4) of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1604(f)(4)) and with respect to which the Secretary of
Agriculture prepares a statement described in section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)); or
``(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph
(A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5-5 of title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) and with
respect to which the Secretary of the Interior prepares a
statement described in section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).''.
(f) Inclusion of Certain Interpretive Rules Involving the
Internal Revenue Laws.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 603 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``or
[[Page H823]]
a recordkeeping requirement, and without regard to whether
such requirement is imposed by statute or regulation.''.
(2) Collection of information.--Paragraph (7) of section
601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(7) Collection of information.--The term `collection of
information' has the meaning given such term in section
3502(3) of title 44.''.
(3) Recordkeeping requirement.--Paragraph (8) of section
601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(8) Recordkeeping requirement.--The term `recordkeeping
requirement' has the meaning given such term in section
3502(13) of title 44.''.
(g) Definition of Small Organization.--Paragraph (4) of
section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Small organization.--
``(A) In general.--The term `small organization' means any
not-for-profit enterprise which, as of the issuance of the
notice of proposed rulemaking--
``(i) in the case of an enterprise which is described by a
classification code of the North American Industrial
Classification System, does not exceed the size standard
established by the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632) for small business concerns described by
such classification code; and
``(ii) in the case of any other enterprise, has a net worth
that does not exceed $7,000,000 and has not more than 500
employees.
``(B) Local labor organizations.--In the case of any local
labor organization, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without
regard to any national or international organization of which
such local labor organization is a part.
``(C) Agency definitions.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall
not apply to the extent that an agency, after consultation
with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
establishes one or more definitions for such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes
such definitions in the Federal Register.''.
SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF REPORT OF REGULATORY AGENDA.
Section 602 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, and'' at the end and
inserting ``;'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) a brief description of the sector of the North
American Industrial Classification System that is primarily
affected by any rule which the agency expects to propose or
promulgate which is likely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; and''; and
(2) in subsection (c), to read as follows:
``(c) Each agency shall prominently display a plain
language summary of the information contained in the
regulatory flexibility agenda published under subsection (a)
on its website within 3 days of its publication in the
Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration shall compile and prominently display
a plain language summary of the regulatory agendas referenced
in subsection (a) for each agency on its website within 3
days of their publication in the Federal Register.''.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSES.
(a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Subsection
(b) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required
under this section shall contain a detailed statement--
``(1) describing the reasons why action by the agency is
being considered;
``(2) describing the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
``(3) estimating the number and type of small entities to
which the proposed rule will apply;
``(4) describing the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule,
including an estimate of the classes of small entities which
will be subject to the requirement and the type of
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
and record;
``(5) describing all relevant Federal rules which may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, or
the reasons why such a description could not be provided;
``(6) estimating the additional cumulative economic impact
of the proposed rule on small entities beyond that already
imposed on the class of small entities by the agency or why
such an estimate is not available;
``(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on
small entities or a specific class of small entities; and
``(8) describing any impairment of the ability of small
entities to have access to credit.''.
(b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
(1) In general.--Section 604(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``an explanation'' and
inserting ``a detailed explanation'';
(B) in each of paragraphs (4), (5), and the first paragraph
(6), by inserting ``detailed'' before ``description'';
(C) in the second paragraph (6), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and'';
(D) by redesignating the second paragraph (6) as paragraph
(7); and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) a detailed description of any disproportionate
economic impact on small entities or a specific class of
small entities.''.
(2) Inclusion of response to comments on certification of
proposed rule.--Paragraph (2) of section 604(a) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``(or
certification of the proposed rule under section 605(b))''
after ``initial regulatory flexibility analysis''.
(3) Publication of analysis on website.--Subsection (b) of
section 604 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(b) The agency shall make copies of the final regulatory
flexibility analysis available to the public, including
placement of the entire analysis on the agency's website, and
shall publish in the Federal Register the final regulatory
flexibility analysis, or a summary thereof which includes the
telephone number, mailing address, and link to the website
where the complete analysis may be obtained.''.
(c) Cross-references to Other Analyses.--Subsection (a) of
section 605 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) A Federal agency shall be treated as satisfying any
requirement regarding the content of an agenda or regulatory
flexibility analysis under section 602, 603, or 604, if such
agency provides in such agenda or analysis a cross-reference
to the specific portion of another agenda or analysis which
is required by any other law and which satisfies such
requirement.''.
(d) Certifications.--Subsection (b) of section 605 of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``detailed'' before ``statement'' the
first place it appears; and
(2) by inserting ``and legal'' after ``factual''.
(e) Quantification Requirements.--Section 607 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 607. Quantification requirements
``In complying with sections 603 and 604, an agency shall
provide--
``(1) a quantifiable or numerical description of the
effects of the proposed or final rule and alternatives to the
proposed or final rule; or
``(2) a more general descriptive statement and a detailed
statement explaining why quantification is not practicable or
reliable.''.
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF WAIVER AND DELAY AUTHORITY; ADDITIONAL
POWERS OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY.
(a) In General.--Section 608 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy
``(a)(1) Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration shall, after opportunity
for notice and comment under section 553, issue rules
governing agency compliance with this chapter. The Chief
Counsel may modify or amend such rules after notice and
comment under section 553. This chapter (other than this
subsection) shall not apply with respect to the issuance,
modification, and amendment of rules under this paragraph.
``(2) An agency shall not issue rules which supplement the
rules issued under subsection (a) unless such agency has
first consulted with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to ensure
that such supplemental rules comply with this chapter and the
rules issued under paragraph (1).
``(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may intervene
in any agency adjudication (unless such agency is authorized
to impose a fine or penalty under such adjudication), and may
inform the agency of the impact that any decision on the
record may have on small entities. The Chief Counsel shall
not initiate an appeal with respect to any adjudication in
which the Chief Counsel intervenes under this subsection.
``(c) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy may file comments in
response to any agency notice requesting comment, regardless
of whether the agency is required to file a general notice of
proposed rulemaking under section 553.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 611(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking
``608(b),''.
(2) Section 611(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking
``608(b),''.
(3) Section 611(a)(3) of such title is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(B) by striking ``(3)(A) A small entity'' and inserting the
following:
``(3) A small entity''.
SEC. 6. PROCEDURES FOR GATHERING COMMENTS.
Section 609 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (b) and all that follows through the end
of the section and inserting the following:
``(b)(1) Prior to publication of any proposed rule
described in subsection (e), an agency making such rule shall
notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and provide the Chief Counsel with--
``(A) all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in
making the proposed rule, including the draft of the proposed
rule; and
``(B) information on the potential adverse and beneficial
economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
the type of small entities that might be affected.
``(2) An agency shall not be required under paragraph (1)
to provide the exact language of any draft if the rule--
``(A) relates to the internal revenue laws of the United
States; or
``(B) is proposed by an independent regulatory agency (as
defined in section 3502(5) of title 44).
``(c) Not later than 15 days after the receipt of such
materials and information under subsection (b), the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
shall--
``(1) identify small entities or representatives of small
entities or a combination of both for the purpose of
obtaining advice, input, and recommendations from those
persons about the potential economic impacts of the proposed
rule
[[Page H824]]
and the compliance of the agency with section 603; and
``(2) convene a review panel consisting of an employee from
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration,
an employee from the agency making the rule, and in the case
of an agency other than an independent regulatory agency (as
defined in section 3502(5) of title 44), an employee from the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget to review the materials and information
provided to the Chief Counsel under subsection (b).
``(d)(1) Not later than 60 days after the review panel
described in subsection (c)(2) is convened, the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall,
after consultation with the members of such panel, submit a
report to the agency and, in the case of an agency other than
an independent regulatory agency (as defined in section
3502(5) of title 44), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
``(2) Such report shall include an assessment of the
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities,
including an assessment of the proposed rule's impact on the
cost that small entities pay for energy, an assessment of the
proposed rule's impact on start-up costs for small entities,
and a discussion of any alternatives that will minimize
adverse significant economic impacts or maximize beneficial
significant economic impacts on small entities.
``(3) Such report shall become part of the rulemaking
record. In the publication of the proposed rule, the agency
shall explain what actions, if any, the agency took in
response to such report.
``(e) A proposed rule is described by this subsection if
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of
the agency (or the delegatee of the head of the agency), or
an independent regulatory agency determines that the proposed
rule is likely to result in--
``(1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more;
``(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local governments,
tribal organizations, or geographic regions;
``(3) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
``(4) a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
``(f) Upon application by the agency, the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may waive the
requirements of subsections (b) through (e) if the Chief
Counsel determines that compliance with the requirements of
such subsections are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.
``(g) A small entity or a representative of a small entity
may submit a request that the agency provide a copy of the
report prepared under subsection (d) and all materials and
information provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration under subsection (b). The
agency receiving such request shall provide the report,
materials and information to the requesting small entity or
representative of a small entity not later than 10 business
days after receiving such request, except that the agency
shall not disclose any information that is prohibited from
disclosure to the public pursuant to section 552(b) of this
title.''.
SEC. 7. PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES.
Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 610. Periodic review of rules
``(a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
section, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register
and place on its website a plan for the periodic review of
rules issued by the agency which the head of the agency
determines have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Such determination
shall be made without regard to whether the agency performed
an analysis under section 604. The purpose of the review
shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued
without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to
minimize any adverse significant economic impacts or maximize
any beneficial significant economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities. Such plan may be amended by the
agency at any time by publishing the revision in the Federal
Register and subsequently placing the amended plan on the
agency's website.
``(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such
agency rules existing on the date of the enactment of this
section within 10 years of the date of publication of the
plan in the Federal Register and for review of rules adopted
after the date of enactment of this section within 10 years
after the publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. If the head of the agency determines that
completion of the review of existing rules is not feasible by
the established date, the head of the agency shall so certify
in a statement published in the Federal Register and may
extend the review for not longer than 2 years after
publication of notice of extension in the Federal Register.
Such certification and notice shall be sent to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
the Congress.
``(c) The plan shall include a section that details how an
agency will conduct outreach to and meaningfully include
small businesses (including small business concerns owned and
controlled by women, small business concerns owned and
controlled by veterans, and small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals (as such terms are defined in the Small Business
Act)) for the purposes of carrying out this section. The
agency shall include in this section a plan for how the
agency will contact small businesses and gather their input
on existing agency rules.
``(d) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding
the results of its review pursuant to such plan to the
Congress, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, and, in the case of agencies other
than independent regulatory agencies (as defined in section
3502(5) of title 44) to the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget. Such report shall include the
identification of any rule with respect to which the head of
the agency made a determination described in paragraph (5) or
(6) of subsection (e) and a detailed explanation of the
reasons for such determination.
``(e) In reviewing a rule pursuant to subsections (a)
through (d), the agency shall amend or rescind the rule to
minimize any adverse significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities or disproportionate
economic impact on a specific class of small entities, or
maximize any beneficial significant economic impact of the
rule on a substantial number of small entities to the
greatest extent possible, consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes. In amending or rescinding
the rule, the agency shall consider the following factors:
``(1) The continued need for the rule.
``(2) The nature of complaints received by the agency from
small entities concerning the rule.
``(3) Comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
``(4) The complexity of the rule.
``(5) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other Federal rules and, unless the head of
the agency determines it to be infeasible, State,
territorial, and local rules.
``(6) The contribution of the rule to the cumulative
economic impact of all Federal rules on the class of small
entities affected by the rule, unless the head of the agency
determines that such calculations cannot be made and reports
that determination in the annual report required under
subsection (d).
``(7) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated
or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or
other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
``(f) Each year, each agency shall publish in the Federal
Register and on its website a list of rules to be reviewed
pursuant to such plan. The agency shall include in the
publication a solicitation of public comments on any further
inclusions or exclusions of rules from the list, and shall
respond to such comments. Such publication shall include a
brief description of the rule, the reason why the agency
determined that it has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (without regard to
whether it had prepared a final regulatory flexibility
analysis for the rule), and request comments from the public,
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, and the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
concerning the enforcement of the rule.''.
SEC. 8. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT AVAILABLE
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 611(a) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``final agency
action'' and inserting ``such rule''.
(b) Jurisdiction.--Paragraph (2) of such section is amended
by inserting ``(or which would have such jurisdiction if
publication of the final rule constituted final agency
action)'' after ``provision of law,''.
(c) Time for Bringing Action.--Paragraph (3) of such
section is amended--
(1) by striking ``final agency action'' and inserting
``publication of the final rule''; and
(2) by inserting ``, in the case of a rule for which the
date of final agency action is the same date as the
publication of the final rule,'' after ``except that''.
(d) Intervention by Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--Subsection
(b) of section 612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting before the first period ``or agency compliance
with section 601, 603, 604, 605(b), 609, or 610''.
SEC. 9. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS OVER RULES
IMPLEMENTING THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 2342 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``(8) all final rules under section 608(a) of title 5.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (3) of section 2341
of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, when the final rule is under section 608(a)
of title 5.''.
(c) Authorization to Intervene and Comment on Agency
Compliance With Administrative Procedure.--Subsection (b) of
section 612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``chapter 5, and chapter 7,'' after ``this
chapter,''.
[[Page H825]]
SEC. 10. ESTABLISHMENT AND APPROVAL OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN
SIZE STANDARDS BY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 3(a)(2) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(A)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(A) In general.--In addition to the criteria specified in
paragraph (1)--
``(i) the Administrator may specify detailed definitions or
standards by which a business concern may be determined to be
a small business concern for purposes of this Act or the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958; and
``(ii) the Chief Counsel for Advocacy may specify such
definitions or standards for purposes of any other Act.''.
(b) Approval by Chief Counsel.--Clause (iii) of section
3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(a)(2)(C)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iii) except in the case of a size standard prescribed by
the Administrator, is approved by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.''.
(c) Industry Variation.--Paragraph (3) of section 3(a) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or Chief Counsel for Advocacy, as
appropriate'' before ``shall ensure''; and
(2) by inserting ``or Chief Counsel for Advocacy'' before
the period at the end.
(d) Judicial Review of Size Standards Approved by Chief
Counsel.--Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(9) Judicial review of standards approved by chief
counsel.--In the case of an action for judicial review of a
rule which includes a definition or standard approved by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy under this subsection, the party
seeking such review shall be entitled to join the Chief
Counsel as a party in such action.''.
SEC. 11. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 601 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(B) by striking ``(1) the term'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Agency.--The term'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(B) by striking ``(3) the term'' and inserting the
following:
``(3) Small business.--The term'';
(3) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(B) by striking ``(5) the term'' and inserting the
following:
``(5) Small governmental jurisdiction.--The term''; and
(4) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
(B) by striking ``(6) the term'' and inserting the
following:
``(6) Small entity.--The term''.
(b) Incorporations by Reference and Certifications.--The
heading of section 605 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 605. Incorporations by reference and certifications''.
(c) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 6
of title 5, United States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) By striking the item relating to section 605 and
inserting the following new item:
``605. Incorporations by reference and certifications.''.
(2) By striking the item relating to section 607 and
inserting the following new item:
``607. Quantification requirements.''.
(3) By striking the item relating to section 608 and
inserting the following:
``608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy.''.
(d) Other Clerical Amendments to Chapter 6.--Chapter 6 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended in section 603(d)--
(1) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) by striking ``(1) For a covered agency,'' and inserting
``For a covered agency,'';
(3) by striking ``(A) any'' and inserting ``(1) any'';
(4) by striking ``(B) any'' and inserting ``(2) any''; and
(5) by striking ``(C) advice'' and inserting ``(3)
advice''.
SEC. 12. AGENCY PREPARATION OF GUIDES.
Section 212(a)(5) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) is amended to read
as follows:
``(5) Agency preparation of guides.--The agency shall, in
its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter
of the rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure
that the guide is written using sufficiently plain language
likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies
may prepare separate guides covering groups or classes of
similarly affected small entities and may cooperate with
associations of small entities to distribute such guides. In
developing guides, agencies shall solicit input from affected
small entities or associations of affected small entities. An
agency may prepare guides and apply this section with respect
to a rule or a group of related rules.''.
SEC. 13. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
complete and publish a study that examines whether the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has
the capacity and resources to carry out the duties of the
Chief Counsel under this Act and the amendments made by this
Act.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House
Report 114-14. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 114-14.
Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, line 11, strike ``a rule'' and all that follows
through ``a rule'' on line 13 and insert the following: ``--
``(A) a rule pertaining to the protection of the rights of
and benefits for veterans or part 232 of title 32 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (as in effect on July 1, 2014) or any
successor provisions thereto; or
``(B) a rule''.
Page 11, insert after line 14 (and redesignate succeeding
subparagraphs accordingly) the following:
(C) in the first paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' at
the end;
Page 13, line 21, insert after ``Section 608'' the
following: ``of title 5, United States Code,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 78, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, my amendment is very straightforward and has
a singular goal of making sure that we are not making our Active Duty
servicemembers more vulnerable to predatory lending.
Members of our Armed Services make sacrifices every day to protect
our country from harm and to defend our freedoms, and it is our
responsibility here in Congress to ensure that these men and women are
protected from scams and predatory lenders that seek to exploit their
service.
Sadly, it has become clear that the nature of military service makes
our men and women in uniform the ideal targets for predatory loans that
carry exorbitant interest rates.
San Diego, part of which I represent, is home to the largest
concentration of military forces in the world. More than 100,000 Active
Duty servicemembers call the region home. Predatory lending is an acute
problem in my district and in the region and continues to hurt too many
families.
Despite passage of the Military Lending Act of 2007 to eliminate this
type of predatory lending, which too often leaves servicemembers and
their families with crippling amounts of debt, there are a number of
loopholes that these bad-acting lenders have continued to exploit.
These reprehensible predators are trapping servicemembers and their
families in a cycle of debt that can be extremely difficult to
overcome, and it is our responsibility, and we are able to act.
A bipartisan and bicameral effort has been made to call on the
Department of Defense to issue rules that close the loopholes and
ensure our Active Duty personnel do not fall victim to predatory
practices that leave them financially strapped.
This amendment would keep regulations on predatory lenders so that we
are maintaining a watchful eye on those companies that are exploiting
those who have sacrificed so much for our safety, even as we move to
reform and streamline the regulatory processes on businesses that are
playing by the rules.
I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee and
Chairman Chabot of the Small Business Committee for working with me
over the past few days on this amendment, and for their commitment to
working on a bipartisan basis to protect our servicemembers.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I
will
[[Page H826]]
speak in favor of the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is a recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I
think this is a good example of the way bipartisanship should work. The
gentleman offered, I think, a very constructive amendment. We committed
that our staffs and the Members would work together on the gentleman's
amendment, and most of us have agreed with the amendment and do support
it now, so we thank him for his leadership on this amendment.
We strongly support our servicemembers and veterans. Our Nation owes
them an enormous debt and the utmost respect.
In the last Congress an amendment was added to this legislation to
allow rules that protect the rights and benefits of veterans to bypass
the RFA process. That amendment is carried forward in today's
legislation.
The legislation, however, does not yet place on the same plane rules
written to protect Active Duty servicemembers from predatory lending.
This amendment reconciles that difference, and so we again commend the
gentleman for offering it.
In addition, the amendment makes a very small number of technical
corrections to the text of the bill. In each of these ways, the
amendment improves the bill. I would urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Madam Chair, I just simply want to say that I support
this legislation. I tell my children on a weekly basis--they can recite
it verbatim--that if it were not for our veterans, if it were not for
our military personnel and our servicemembers that are working now, my
children wouldn't have what they have today. So I want to reinforce
that.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 2 will not
be offered.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 114-14.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 13, line 18, strike section 5 (and
redesignate provisions accordingly).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 78, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, my amendment would preserve the ability of agencies
to quickly respond to emergencies that threaten America's health and
safety by striking one of the most pernicious elements of this
legislation.
Section 5 of H.R. 527 contains one of the bill's most problematic
provisions. As drafted, it could undermine the ability of agencies to
quickly respond to emergent health and safety risks.
So this section repeals the authority under current law that allows
an agency to waive or delay the initial analysis required under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act ``in response to an emergency that makes
compliance or timely compliance impracticable.''
Rather than leave this critical exception under current law in place,
section 5 replaces it with a provision empowering the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy to issue regulations about how agencies, in general, should
comply with the act, without any provision allowing agencies to respond
to emergencies through expedited rulemakings.
Thus, if there is a looming national pandemic or environmental
disaster that could be avoided or mitigated through regulation, the
bill prevents agencies from responding to such emergencies without
first having to go through the arduous and time-consuming task of
review and analysis.
For example, last year, OSHA issued guidance to assist hospitals in
preparing to provide inpatient care for Ebola patients.
H.R. 527, however, would have significantly delayed this process.
This is because the legislation broadly applies to both rules and
interim guidance, requiring agencies to undertake a burdensome analysis
and review process prior to issuing even interim guidance.
And because H.R. 527 eliminates the emergency exception, there would
have been no way for OSHA to quickly act in the face of a possible
Ebola outbreak.
This amendment would simply preserve the critical emergency exception
under current law so that agencies can quickly respond to emergencies
without being hampered or second-guessed by others.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, one of the key failings of existing law is
that it allows different agencies to interpret differently the terms of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. This allows agencies to find loopholes at
their pleasure and evade the requirements of the law.
The bill remedies this defect by granting the Small Business
Administration's Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy authority to
write regulations to govern all agencies' compliance with the RFA and
SBREFA.
The bill also grants the Office of Chief Counsel authority to
intervene--the key word there, ``intervene''--in agency adjudications
and offer comments in agency notice-and-comment proceedings. These
reforms will, at last, assure consistent compliance with the RFA and
the SBREFA across the entire Federal Government.
The amendment would defeat the purpose and restore to the agencies
their ability to find loopholes to suit their whims. America's small
business creators deserve better than that.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
So if there is a looming environmental disaster or a national
pandemic like Ebola that could be mitigated through regulation, this
bill says: ``Don't worry, don't rush. Let's have the Office of Advocacy
decide.''
And what is this Office of Advocacy?
Well, it is an office that is woefully ill-equipped to fulfill its
current responsibilities. So I urge support for the 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 Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The amendment was rejected.
{time} 1015
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part A of House Report 114-14.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
SEC. 14. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Exception.--In the case of any rule that the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget determines would
result in net job creation, the amendments made by this Act
shall not take effect, and the provisions of law amended, as
in effect on the day prior to the effective date of this Act,
shall remain in effect.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 78, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
[[Page H827]]
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, on many fronts, H.R. 527 does a very good
job strengthening requirements that agencies review regulations that
are already on the books, with stronger analyses about how these
regulations impact small businesses. Ensuring that agencies are
operated in an efficient manner has never been so important. This means
that efforts must be made to limit programs that tend to duplicate one
another.
Now, unfortunately, section 10 of this legislation creates a
duplicative program, using resources twice at the SBA. It further grows
the convoluted aspects of the Federal Government's regulatory
processes.
To approve a size standard has been the province of the SBA
administrative office. It requires expertise and analytical resources,
which the Office of Advocacy will now have to acquire. This will
duplicate similar resources maintained by the SBA's office of size
standards. It seems very redundant to create another office to do the
same thing that a current office already does. The Chief Counsel for
Advocacy for President Reagan testified in 2011 before the Small
Business Committee that Advocacy should not take on the new
responsibilities outlined in this very legislation.
My amendment is simple. It would strike this duplicative section and
keep all the regulatory flexibility reforms that are in the bill.
Eliminating this provision from the bill will not have any effect on
the size standard process or on small businesses. It will be business
as usual. What it does do is saves taxpayers from footing the bill for
two identical size standard offices.
For these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment,
which is a vote to reduce waste and unnecessary duplication at the SBA.
Reducing government complexity should be a bipartisan effort.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chair, this amendment proposes to strike section 10
from the bill, which gives the Small Business Administration's Chief
Counsel for Advocacy authority to approve small business size standards
for the purposes of any act other than the Small Business Act and the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958. That includes, of course,
authority to approve size standards for the purposes of the RFA.
This makes sense, since the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, not the Small
Business administrator, is charged with overseeing agency compliance
with the RFA; and the Chief Counsel exercises that authority
independently from the SBA administrator.
The theory of the amendment is that, under section 10, a new size
standards office, duplicative of the SBA administrator's own size
standards office, will be created. But that is just not the case.
The SBA administrator will retain the authority to set size standards
under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of
1958. But alternative size standards for the purposes of RFA compliance
are a different matter, and under existing law, agencies must consult
with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy with regard to those alternative
size standards.
To authorize the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to actually approve size
standards about which it already must be consulted is simply to
formalize an existing reality, not to create a duplicative function or
a duplicative office. Stated differently, it is erroneous to think that
the Office of Advocacy will have to establish a new office of size
standards to do what the Office of Advocacy already essentially does.
Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
And just in summary, I would reiterate that 70 percent of the jobs
that are created in this economy today are created by small businesses.
They are overregulated. The RFA was basically set up to avoid the
impact on small businesses by all these regulations that are being
imposed upon them.
For small businesses, it is much more expensive for them to comply
than it is for larger corporations who have lots of staff. They have
attorneys. They have accountants and everything else. If you are a
small business owner, it can be the death of that business. And it is
not just that business that goes down the drain, but those jobs do,
too. That affects families all over this country all the time.
The purpose of this legislation is to improve the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and that is why virtually all Republicans and many
Democrats also have endorsed and supported this legislation in the past
and do this time.
There is something like 160 different companies and agencies around
the country that are supportive, and I just wanted to name a few of
those:
The American Dental Association; the Farm Bureau; the Trucking
Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; the credit unions;
the National Association of Manufacturers; the Realtors; the National
Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, which is the principal
organization that advocates on behalf of small businesses in this
country; the National Restaurant Association; the Retail Federation;
the independent drivers; the Chamber; and on and on. Obviously, I don't
have time to read them all.
This is good legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHRADER. 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 Oregon will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part A of House Report 114-14.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 26, beginning on line 9, strike section 10, and
redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 78, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment,
which would exempt from H.R. 527 all rules that the Office of
Management and Budget determines would result in net job creation.
Under President Obama, our country has rebounded from the Great
Recession, creating 11 million new jobs over 5 years, and unemployment
is falling at the fastest rate in three decades. Consumer and business
spending have catalyzed the fastest gross domestic product growth since
2003. My amendment would ensure that this meteoric growth and progress
continues.
Contrary to my Republican colleagues' assertion that regulations kill
jobs, a wealth of unimpeachable, bipartisan evidence has repeatedly and
effectively debunked this claim. Studies by both the San Francisco and
New York Federal Reserve found that there is zero correlation between
job growth and regulations and that there is no evidence showing that
increased regulations and taxes have any effect on the unemployment
rate.
And the evidence that regulations harm the economy? The only evidence
relied on for the absurd figures repeated by the proponents of this
bill derive from a study roundly disproven by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service, which found that the study's cost
figures were cherry-picked, inaccurate, based on evidence from decades
ago, and without contemporary value.
I have also heard my Republican colleagues repeatedly claim that
regulations have a $15,000 regulatory burden on every American family.
Consequently, The Washington Post awarded this claim, ``Two
Pinocchios,'' on January 14, arguing that this absurd figure has
``serious methodological problems--even the report admits it is `not
scientific' and `back of the envelope'--and we fear these caveats are
being forgotten as it is repeated in Capitol Hill news conferences and
then in
[[Page H828]]
news reports,'' and sometimes even on this floor.
Mr. Chair, the economy and job growth are growing at its fastest pace
in years on the back of sound economic policy and sensible regulations.
Despite this growth, it is clear that many continue to struggle to live
comfortably on their income, pay their bills on time, or set aside for
retirement. Americans work harder than ever, thanks to corporations
maximizing profits through a ``streamlined workforce.'' Meanwhile, the
world's top 1 percent will soon control half of the world's wealth as
the compensation of corporate executives balloons ever-higher.
The same corporations that are continuing to show record profit
margins are also pushing deregulation and fewer taxes because they have
a ``myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long-
term value creation,'' according to Henry Blodget, the CEO of Business
Insider.
It is also clear that, despite its incredible workplace productivity,
wages have stagnated. We do need to fix that, but unfortunately,
deregulation does not do so.
Last Congress, Republicans blocked Democratic legislation that would
increase the Federal minimum wage by less than $3, lifting countless
full-time workers out of poverty, while saving the Federal Government
trillions in annual safety net costs.
Fortunately, for Americans, minimum wage increases have gone into
effect in 20 States this month alone, bringing the minimum wage in 29
States above the Federal minimum wage, but yet this Congress refuses to
take up legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage. Perhaps my
Republican colleagues will heed the calls of workers across the country
for a living wage. This bill does not do that.
I ask that my colleagues support my amendment, which does protect
jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I share and welcome the gentleman's concerns
about the impacts of regulations on jobs, but the right way to address
that concern is to join me in supporting this bill.
At the heart of the bill are reforms to make sure agencies better
identify the potential jobs impact of new rules; that includes not only
identifying and minimizing the adverse jobs impact, but maximizing
positive job benefits. It is right there in subsection 2(c) on page 3
of the bill.
If the gentleman wants to maximize job creation, the way to do it is
to make sure the provisions designed to maximize job benefits apply to
all rules, including those that OMB believes will result in net job
creation.
Why stop at just helping to create a net increase in jobs, which
could mean as little as just one net job? Why not make sure agencies
always work with small businesses under the bill's provisions to help
create the most new jobs possible and prevent the destruction of the
most jobs possible? Isn't that what makes sense as the Nation tries to
recover from the jobs depression?
Further, why create a carve-out from the bill that gives the
executive branch an incentive to manipulate its jobs impact analyses to
avoid the requirements of the bill rather than comply with them?
I would also like to bring to the Chair's attention, this
administration highly overinflates--or underinflates, whatever side you
are looking at--the unemployment rate.
{time} 1030
In the unemployment rate, they are not taking into account the almost
1 million people that are not looking for work, and that is normally
taken into consideration. They are also taking into account as a person
being employed as this example: a person who mows his neighbor's lawn
for 20 bucks because he doesn't have a job. That is considered,
according to this administration, a job.
Multiple reports clearly prove that the cost of Federal regulation to
the U.S. economy, manufacturing, and small business, and Ten Thousand
Commandments, these are reports from just last year, and they give the
accurate account of the unemployment rate.
My good colleague on the other side of the aisle refers to a report
from 2010. We should be referring to the latest reports as I hold them
in my hand.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 6 printed in part A of House Report 114-14.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
SEC. 14. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Exception.--In the case of a rule proposed, issued, or
made by the Food and Drug Administration relating to consumer
safety, including any rule made under the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act, the amendments made by this Act shall not
take effect, and the provisions of law amended, as in effect
on the day prior to the effective date of this Act, shall
remain in effect.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 78, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman; thank the
mover of this legislation; my ranking member, Mr. Johnson; and my
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, for their leadership
and for bringing us together around a universal concept.
We all are promoting jobs, Mr. Chairman. Not one of us on this floor
wants to in any way undermine jobs. We want people to work, and we want
small businesses to have the opportunity to thrive.
What I am talking about is the reality of protecting the American
people when it comes to unique issues of health care. I am not going to
cite the name of this individual, but what I am going to do is to read
just a paragraph from Al Kamen, K-a-m-e-n, ``In the Loop'':
``As a matter of fact, I think this is one where I think I
can illustrate the point,'' he recalled telling her. ``I
don't have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt
out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says, `We
don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving
the restroom.' The market will take care of this. It is one
example.''
Now, I have a different perspective, and so my amendment under this
legislation asks to make an exception for rules that are dealing with
consumer safety, saving lives.
My amendment makes an exception for rules from the Food and Drug
Administration, commonly known as the FDA. This bill, H.R. 527, seeks
to reform the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and 1996 which
attempted to require agencies to account better for the impact of
proposed regulations on small businesses, other small entities, and to
tailor final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities
like the Food and Drug Administration.
Yes, small business can be a single franchise of a McDonald's or
Burger King or Starbucks, many of them doing quite well. It could be a
number of them under one businessowner. But, in fact, they do deal with
the public.
This bill continues to expand the reach and scope of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and would only add to already unnecessary and lengthy
regulatory delays, increased meddling by regulated industries, and
encourage gratuitous court challenges.
The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act adds a host of new
analytical requirements for agency policy actions, including
rulemakings and guidance documents, that might affect a large number of
small businesses, even if that is indirect.
Because the bill defines indirect effects broadly, it would mandate
costly and wasteful new analyses that could be applied to virtually any
action and agency attempt to make a better life
[[Page H829]]
for Americans, no matter how tenuous the connection to business
interests.
Again, can we imagine not being able to regulate or interfere with
some small business that says you do not have to wash your hands in a
restaurant? It is shocking to me.
Mr. Chairman, when I wrote this amendment, I had in mind one of the
new issues that we have been facing, and that is the story of CRE,
which is a disease that is being found on endoscopes, that has been
found in a particular hospital in the far West.
This disease, this rare bacteria, was likely spread through
specialized endoscopes that have been cleaned according to
manufacturer's directions but still had some form of deadly germs. Are
we suggesting that it is not an emergency to regulate or to keep or to
be able to suggest that there needs to be a better cleaning process?
This is just the latest example of a life-threatening disease which
is calling out for action from the government, and the CDC and the FDA
should not have their hands tied.
In fact, the Houston Chronicle reported last week that these problems
of dirty endoscopes have been tied to superbug infections in cities
like Chicago and Pittsburgh in recent years. Although the bacteria
weren't exactly the same, the situation raises new questions about the
design, this infection, and regulation of the devices.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that our economy is doing fine, not for
every single American, but it has a marked improvement. Jobs are
increasing, and unemployment is under 5 percent.
I would only say that this legislation needs an addition from this
amendment, and I hope my colleagues will accept the Jackson Lee
amendment. It is a commonsense amendment that speaks to the health and
care of the American public.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain my
amendment. My amendment makes an exception for rules from the Food and
Drug Administration, commonly known as the FDA.
This bill, H.R. 527, seek to reform the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, which attempted to require agencies to account better for the
impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small
entities and to tailor final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on
these entities like the Food and Drug Administration.
In reality, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act expands the
reach and scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and would only add to
already unnecessary and lengthy regulatory delays, increase meddling by
regulated industries, and encourage gratuitous court challenges.
The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act adds a host of new
analytical requirements for agency policy actions--including
rulemakings and guidance documents--that might affect a large number of
small businesses, even if that effect is ``indirect.''
And because the bill defines ``indirect effects'' broadly, it would
mandate costly and wasteful new analyses that could be applied to
virtually any action an agency attempts to undertake, no matter how
tenuous the connection to small business interests.
And according to the American Sustainable Business Council, this bill
would open the door for regulated industries to manipulate the
regulatory process in their favor.
This undue influence would paralyze the regulatory process, creating
uncertainty in the marketplace and stifling competition and innovation
from small- and medium-sized entities.
When I wrote this amendment I had in mind the rare bacteria like that
known as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, commonly known as
CRE. This rare bacteria is being transmitted to patients even though
the tools had been cleaned according to manufacturers' directions but
still harbored the potentially deadly germs.
This is just the latest example of a life-threatening disease which
is calling out for action from the government--and the CDC and the FDA
should not have their hands tied.
The Houston Chronicle reported in a story last week:
The Seattle outbreak appears to be among the worst so far
in the U.S., where problems with dirty endoscopes have been
tied to superbug infections in Chicago and Pittsburgh in
recent years. Although the bacteria weren't exactly the same,
the situation raises new questions about the design,
disinfection and REGULATION of the devices, critics charge.
The bill reforms the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which attempted
to require agencies to account better for the impacts of proposed
regulations on small businesses and other small entities and to tailor
final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities like
the Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. Chair, the economy is doing fine now, not for every single
American but it has seen a marked improvement from 2008. A bill like
H.R. 527 only serves to gum-up the wheels of government and business
collaboration by creating new and confusing rules.
When added to the existing gauntlet of procedural and analytical
requirements that agencies must already navigate in order implement
laws, SBRFIA's new requirements would serve only to further ``ossify''
rulemaking and make it nearly impossible for agencies to fulfill their
congressionally mandated mission of protecting the public and
responding to emerging health and environmental dangers.
The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act also ties
the hands of agencies like the FDA by forcing them to delay actions
until new analyses are completed. Under current law, an agency can
continue to promulgate a regulation before it has finished the
regulatory flexibility analysis, if the agency head believes its
mission or the law calls for more immediate action.
The SBRFIA would eliminate these commonsense procedures. Imagine if
emergency regulations to protect miners had to be delayed until the
agency could finish this onerous and highly speculative analysis-lives
could be lost and people could be needlessly injured. Or the FDA needed
to issue a rule impacting the safety of dairy products. Lives are at
stake.
Let me be quick to add that I specifically I oppose H.R. 527 because:
(1) it is based on a faulty study; (2) taken as a whole, it will
severely undermine Federal agency rulemaking, thereby threatening
public health and safety; (3) it fails to address shortcomings in
current law; (4) it offers no real assistance to small businesses in
complying with regulations; and (5) it imposes additional duties on
agencies while failing to provide any additional resources to agencies.
I urge an aye vote for the Jackson Lee amendment exempting FDA rules
and add common sense to this legislation.
[From the Houston Chronicle, Jan. 22, 2015]
Seattle (AP).--A multidrug-resistant superbug has sickened
dozens of people at a Seattle hospital, spread from patient-
to-patient through contaminated equipment.
The Seattle Times reports (http://is.gd/m4JVhK )
investigators found the rare bacteria known as CRE--
carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae--was likely spread
through specialized endoscopes that had been cleaned
according to manufacturers' directions but still had some of
the deadly germs.
Virginia Mason Medical Center officials say they've changed
their cleaning protocol for the devices, even though federal
officials found no problem with their infection-control
practices.
Doctors say 11 of the at least 35 patients infected at the
hospital died, but it's not clear what role, if any, the
infection played in their deaths.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes to carve out an
exception to the bill for Food and Drug Administration rules related to
consumer safety. I am all for consumer safety. All of us support the
protection of consumer safety, but it is my fervent hope that all of us
also support small business jobs and want to protect them.
That, of course, was the point of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in
the first place, to continue to allow agencies like the FDA to protect
consumers but, at the same time, to start accounting for and avoiding--
where possible--adverse impacts on small businesses.
If agencies had faithfully done what they were supposed to do under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, then we wouldn't be here today, but
they haven't; instead, they have routinely tried to evade that law.
That has to stop.
Small businesses create jobs, and jobs are the key to economic
recovery. To help small businesses to create jobs, we need to reduce--
not increase--the regulatory burden on small businesses.
The FDA is a major regulatory agency, and it is not exempt from the
RFA as it currently stands. Now is not the time to start walking back
the RFA's requirements. This amendment simply is not consistent with
the spirit of small business--the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements
Act--or the needs of today's small business job creators.
[[Page H830]]
If the gentlelady's concern is to make sure that the law allows the
FDA to issue new emergency rules to protect consumer safety, then let
me assure her, there is no need to worry. Subsection 553(b)(3)(B) of
the APA already allows agencies to dispense with notice and comment for
good cause.
Since the RFA only applies in notice and comment rulemakings, a fact
the bill does not change, nothing will hinder the FDA from issuing
emergency rules if the bill is enacted.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy), our leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I recently read a headline about the President's
budget. Do you know what it said? ``Budget proposal is Obama's map back
to Big Government.'' Think about that for a moment. There used to be a
time, Mr. Chairman, in the White House where they said, ``The era of
Big Government is over.'' Now, it is as if we are heading back in time.
Everyone knows why the era of Big Government should be over. It is
because Big Government has big costs. Mr. Chairman, large, inefficient
programs cost a lot of money which mean higher taxes and more debt, but
there are other costs to Big Government, too. As government grows, so
does bureaucracy; and more bureaucracy means more regulations.
These regulations--tens of thousands of pages--get put on the backs
of every single individual in business that works hard and tries to get
by. In fact, for small businesses, regulations add almost $1,000 per
employee per month--think of that, $1,000 per employee per month. That
makes it much harder for our economy to grow and for small businesses
to create jobs.
America needs a full-scale regulatory reform, so that bureaucracy is
held accountable for all these costs. I know that is a big goal, but
Representative Chabot's bill is a step realizing that goal.
This bill forces agencies to consider the least costly options for
getting something done, just like every American has to do in a tough
economy, and it makes agencies actually have to think about the impact
the regulations have on small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, President Clinton said, ``The era of Big Government is
over.'' It should be over. America simply cannot afford to tie down
small businesses and hardworking people with more red tape, so let's
take a step forward.
Let's move forward, ending the era of Big Government, and vote
``yes'' on the bill.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report
114-14 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Schrader of Oregon.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Schrader) 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 184,
noes 234, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 65]
AYES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
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 (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
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
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--234
Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
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
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
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
Rice (SC)
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
[[Page H831]]
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--15
Aderholt
Chu (CA)
Collins (GA)
Duckworth
Emmer
Engel
Gutierrez
Lee
Lofgren
Loudermilk
Meehan
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)
{time} 1111
Messrs. BOST, HANNA, DUNCAN of South Carolina, and ROKITA changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 65 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 65 I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
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 172,
noes 248, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 66]
AYES--172
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
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
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.
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
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--248
Abraham
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 (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
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--13
Aderholt
Chu (CA)
Collins (GA)
Delaney
Duckworth
Engel
Gutierrez
Lee
Lofgren
Nunnelee
Peters
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)
{time} 1116
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chair, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No.
66 today due to congressional business. Had I been present to vote, I
would have voted `aye'.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Byrne, 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. 527) to
amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of potential
impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 78, he reported the bill back to the House
with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
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
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. DEUTCH. I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Deutch moves to recommit the bill H.R. 527 to the
Committee on the Judiciary
[[Page H832]]
with instructions to report the same to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
SEC. 14. PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act do not apply
in the case of any rule that stops the proliferation, spread,
or development of nuclear weapons, including to North Korea
and Iran.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It
won't kill the bill, and it won't send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility
Improvements Act, would mire the rulemaking process in an endless
agency analytical and procedural review. This bill would require
agencies to engage in speculative analysis on the ``indirect economic
effect'' of a proposed rule.
Critical rules that protect the health and safety of our communities,
that protect the environment in which we live, and that respond to
disasters or pandemics would be stuck in this bill's imposed layers of
bureaucratic review, and there would be no relief under this bill for
rules that are needed to address an ongoing emergency. Indeed, in the
event of an emergency, agencies would be required to conduct a lengthy
and time-consuming analysis even of a rule that would protect citizens
from harm.
Now a note to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Putting the
words ``small business'' in the title of a bill does not magically make
it a bill good for small business or good for our national security.
Facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that this bill is dangerous
to American national security. However, my amendment can change this.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment would ensure the safety and security of
the American people. It would ensure that they would not be hindered by
additional bureaucratic procedures by ensuring that this act would not
apply to any rule that stops the proliferation, spread, or development
of nuclear weapons.
The United States has long worked to prevent the proliferation of
nuclear weapons worldwide. We have worked to help nations achieve
nuclear power without the domestic capabilities to produce weapons-
grade uranium. We have worked with the international community to enact
United Nations Security Council resolutions to prohibit rogue regimes
from procuring materials that could be used for the development of
nuclear weapons. This includes a robust sanctions regime aimed at Iran.
Our own Commerce Department has developed detailed procurement
regulations to prevent dual use materials from falling into the wrong
hands. We have enacted punishing sanctions through the Treasury
Department on those who aid in the procurement of materials used for
nuclear weapons programs.
Now, let me be absolutely clear about the most important national
security threat facing the United States and our allies: a nuclear-
armed Iran. All of us here are watching the negotiations closely, and
we hope for a diplomatic and negotiated end to the Iranian nuclear
weapons program. That is everyone's priority.
However, we must prepare for the possibility that Iran rejects
diplomacy. If Iran walks away from the talks, Congress and the
President have been clear that we will want to immediately and urgently
impose new sanctions. We will need new, fast-moving, antiproliferation
actions, and we will have to put immediate pressure on this
rejectionist regime.
This bill, in its current form, prevents that. Our national security
and that of our allies depends on our agencies acting fast and
efficiently. In no uncertain terms, the majority's bill puts our
national security at risk.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons will not be stopped by adding
new layers of bureaucracy. Iran's sponsorship of terrorist groups is no
secret. It openly ships missiles and rockets to Hezbollah and Hamas--
designated terrorist organizations that launch attacks on civilians--in
direct violation of international law. Now Iran and North Korea are
working together, sparking vital proliferation worries. The Ayatollah
has declared the two nations share common enemies, and we already know
that Iran and North Korea have cooperated on ballistic missiles.
So I would ask my colleagues to imagine a scenario in which Iran
walks away from the talks and takes its nuclear program deeper
underground, where Iran's activities are sealed and where an arms race
is sparked in the region. When it comes to nuclear proliferation and
the safety of the United States and international security, the U.S.
must have a responsibility to act quickly. Congress cannot--and
Congress should not--make it more difficult for our government to act
to keep our people safe.
Mr. Speaker, the safety of Americans is too important to tie up in
Washington politics. Just this week, Russia announced that it would no
longer comply with the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program,
which was specifically designed to ensure the security of existing
nuclear stockpiles.
Do we really want, I ask my colleagues, to risk the safety and
security of the United States and that of our allies around the world
by hindering our ability to halt the dangerous and destabilizing spread
of nuclear weapons because an agency must justify the costs or waste
resources and time in conducting a costly analysis of alternative ways
to eliminate or streamline new regulations? Do we want to hold up
regulations, I ask my colleagues, that will help to keep us safe?
All this amendment does is simply protect the American people from
the threat of nuclear proliferation. On this, we should be able to come
together. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This motion to recommit presents the perfect opportunity for my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to turn the page. Six long
years into the Obama administration, our constituents feel trapped in a
job depression. This bill offers one of the best chances we have to
really start to turn things around for our constituents.
The bill contains clear, commonsense reforms that will take
Washington's regulatory boot off the neck of small businesses in all of
our districts so they can create the new jobs our constituents need.
The bill contains numerous Democrat-sponsored amendments, making it a
truly bipartisan product.
The bill, with bipartisan support, has already passed the House three
times in the past two Congresses only to die an obstructionist death at
the hands of the former Senate majority leader, who, by the way, the
voters threw out of the majority last November. We now have a chance to
pass the bill again at the very start of this Congress and to send it
over to a Senate that will actually consider it. We should all seize
this opportunity.
But what would this motion to recommit do?
It would, once again, inflict on the American people the ways of
obstruction. It would block the bill from passage. It would prevent the
bill from promptly reaching the Senate and helping to create new jobs
for our constituents.
Let's all make this a vote to end the obstruction. With this vote,
help this Congress turn the page the voters sent us here to turn. Vote
against this motion to recommit. Vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DEUTCH. 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 passage of the bill, if ordered.
[[Page H833]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 240, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 67]
AYES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
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
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--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Chu (CA)
Collins (GA)
Duckworth
Engel
Gutierrez
Lee
Lofgren
McDermott
Nunnelee
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1135
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260,
noes 163, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 68]
AYES--260
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
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)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
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
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
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
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--163
Adams
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
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
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
[[Page H834]]
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
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
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
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
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Chu (CA)
Collins (GA)
Duckworth
Engel
Gutierrez
Lee
Lofgren
Nunnelee
Roe (TN)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1143
Mrs. DINGELL changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GROTHMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
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 No. 65--no; rollcall No. 66--no; rollcall No. 67--no;
rollcall No. 68--aye.
____________________