[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.

                          ____________________