Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 120 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8539-H8545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1245
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 427, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE
IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE
PERIOD FROM JULY 30, 2015, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 7, 2015; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 380

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 427) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive
branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint
resolution of approval is enacted into law. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from July
30, 2015, through September 7, 2015--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 5. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 6. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of July 30, 2015, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
Sec. 7. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of July 30, 2015.
Sec. 8. For purposes of the joint meeting to receive Pope
Francis on September 24, 2015, only the following persons
shall be admitted to the Hall of the House or rooms leading
thereto:
(a) Members of Congress and Members-elect.
(b) The Delegates and the Resident Commissioner.
(c) The President and Vice President of the United States.
(d) Justices of the Supreme Court.
(e) Elected officers of the House.
(f) The Parliamentarian.
(g) The Architect of the Capitol.
(h) The Librarian of Congress.
(i) The Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate.
(j) Heads of departments.
(k) Other persons as designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 380, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule
forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules. This rule provides for a
robust amendment debate on an issue of critical national importance.
This rule provides for the consideration of H.R.

[[Page H8540]]

427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2015.
The Committee on Rules met on this measure yesterday evening and
heard testimony from both the chairman and the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law of the
Committee on the Judiciary, in addition to receiving amendment
testimony.
This rule brought forward by the committee is a structured rule.
There were 18 amendments total submitted to the Committee on Rules. Of
those submitted, I am pleased to say that the full House will debate
and vote on 10 of those amendments.
This legislation also went through regular order in the committee.
During the committee markup, eight amendments were debated and voted
on, including one I offered and that the committee had actually agreed
to.
This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. I appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary
Chairman, Bob Goodlatte, and his full committee and subcommittee staff
in bringing forward H.R. 427.
I strongly support this rule and the underlying legislation because,
when we reform our Nation's regulatory system, we will jump-start the
engine of our economy; and when our economy gets up and going, our
families flourish.
What does this administration produce more than 60 of every day? Here
is a hint: It is not jobs. The answer lies in the heart of many woes
facing small businesses and established industries.
What they produce every day is regulations. The goal of any
regulation should be to achieve a benefit that would not be possible
without it, designed in such a fashion that the achieved benefit far
outweighs the cost, but our administration has lost sight of this goal,
and America's economic engine is paying the price.
Our current Federal Government designs regulations that are often
unnecessary and achieve little to no benefit, but at very high cost.
The rules have become so skewed that this administration's regulators
are at war with American businesses.
Industries such as manufacturing and technology are fighting to
compete in a global market, but first, they must survive the regulatory
beast that is strangling innovation and growth.
This administration is legislating through regulation yet decries the
REINS Act and calls it an unprecedented requirement. When you
circumvent Congress and exploit the rulemaking process in order to,
one, make law and, two, make law in contradiction to the wishes and
needs of the American people, you should expect unprecedented
responses.
In just the first 7 days of 2015--just the first 7 days of 2015--the
administration unveiled 300 new rules. Over the Memorial Day weekend,
the administration quietly published the spring 2015 Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. What it contained was so disheartening to the
American people and so destructive to small business that it didn't go
unnoticed.
The agenda showed that the Federal departments and agencies have
3,260 rules in the midst right now of the rulemaking process.
Unfortunately, it is not just the sheer number of regulations that is
astounding; it is also the oppressive cost.
One of these 3,260 rules I mentioned is predicted to be one of the
costliest regulations ever put forward, the EPA's national ozone
standard. A recent analysis found the cost of this one regulation to be
upwards of $140 billion. It will cost my home State of Georgia over
11,000 jobs.
To add insult to injury, the first line of H.R. 427 Statement of
Administration Policy states:

The administration is committed to ensuring that
regulations are smart and effective and tailored to further
the statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient
manner.

This is the statement from the administration on why they oppose H.R.
427.
I cannot believe that a single regulation promulgated by this
administration with $140 billion of cost was put forward in the most
cost-effective manner, and a regulation costing 11,000 jobs in Georgia
alone is hardly smart. The Statement of Administration Policy also
claims that the underlying legislation would create business
uncertainty.
I encourage this administration to use the infamous pen and phone to
actually ask businesses what creates uncertainty for them because, when
small businesses across the country came to Congress last week as part
of National Federation of Independent Business lobbying day, their top
legislative priority was regulatory relief. These are small-business
owners who sat with us and said: Here is what we are facing in trying
to get people jobs.
The 3,000-plus regulations in the works by this administration create
the uncertainty, not this body's effort to require agencies to submit
the most costly regulations to Congress for approval. The underlying
bill applies only to regulations with a $100 million impact or greater.
The American people do not elect this administration's regulators--or
any administration's regulators for that matter. They elect us in this
body to represent them. This bill allows us to do so properly.
The system is broken. The system has failed the American people. The
REINS Act is the first step toward restoring proper order and even
sanity toward our regulatory framework.
The administration states that Executive Order No. 13563 requires
careful cost-benefit analysis, but they don't explain why only 7 rules
out of the thousands had cost-benefit analysis in 2013 and only 14
rules had that in 2012.
This administration's regulators have stated publicly that they are
not going to sit around and wait for Congress--so much for respecting
the powers enshrined in our Constitution and, thus, the reason that we
need this legislation and why this rule should be approved.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 2 legislative days--really a day-and-a-half now--remain
before Congress recesses for 5 weeks. Here we are, yet again,
considering a piece of partisan legislation designed to fill up floor
time, which has little to no chance at all of becoming law.
It is unconscionable that the majority continues to waste
legislators' and the American people's time with bills such as the
Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act--they really do
name things nice around here, the REINS Act--when critically important
work is left to be done.
Just a few moments ago, the minority whip spoke to three issues; I
include them in my commentary, but largely, one that all of us ought be
interested in is the highway trust fund, which will become insolvent on
August 1 if those of us sent here to Washington to govern do not come
up with a solution.
Instead of focusing on priorities like eliminating corporate tax
loopholes to ensure that we have the money to fund projects to repair
our Nation's deteriorating roads and bridges, House Republicans passed
yet another short-term patch that the Senate has refused to take up.
The majority's dysfunction and inability to govern is having a real
impact on hard-working Americans.
Today marks the 204th day of the Republican-led 114th Congress. In
the nearly 6 months that have passed, the majority has compromised the
financial security of American companies by failing to reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank's charter; avoided passing a long-term
transportation and infrastructure bill; passed pointless legislation
designed to cut critical funding from local police departments and
communities in lieu of taking up comprehensive immigration reform;
refused, they did, to bring up the student loan refinancing bill; and
perhaps most abhorrent to some of us, voted four times in support of
the Confederate battle flag, a symbol of hate and intolerance that has
no place on any of our public lands.

{time} 1300

The days leading up to a month-long congressional recess should be
spent debating and voting on the important issues that our constituents
sent us here to address--as an example, restoring the Voting Rights
Act, bolstering our economy through a long-term highway bill, and
guaranteeing that jobs are created and sustained.

[[Page H8541]]

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 427 is yet another partisan measure that Republican
leadership has selected for consideration, despite its clear
constitutional violations and with the knowledge that it stands an
almost certain Presidential veto.
It is, therefore, unclear to me why we are spending precious time on
this bill. We already have the power to disapprove proposed rules; we
have the power to limit delegations of authorities to agencies; we have
the power to control the appropriations; and we have the power to stay
the effect of specific rules and hold oversight hearings. It seems to
me that, in addition to these tools being quite powerful, they also
comply with the doctrine of separation of powers and, therefore, have
the added benefit of being constitutional.
The REINS Act would require both Houses of Congress to approve every
major rule, many of which are highly technical ones authored by experts
such as scientists, physicians, engineers, and economists.
There simply isn't enough time for Congress to hold the hearings and
conduct the research necessary to weigh in on these complicated
matters. The individuals tasked with making these difficult regulatory
decisions are certainly more qualified than most, if not all of us here
in this room, and it is for this precise reason that Congress wisely
delegated this regulatory authority to such experts.
Politicizing this process will not only permit industry
representatives with deep pockets to have an overwhelming influence on
whether major rules go into effect, it will make it nearly impossible
for agencies to implement rules regulating consumer health and product
safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and financial
services industry misconduct. The enactment of this legislation would,
in my opinion, do immeasurable disservice to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time
as he may consume to the good gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida asked a rhetorical question. He
said: Why spend precious time on this? And here is the reply: Because
our constituents' time is precious. Our constituents' time in trying to
comply with regulations is precious.
Before I get there, let me just give you a little bit of a history,
Mr. Speaker, about my understanding of the genesis of the REINS Act. It
is interesting from a process point of view and a substance point of
view.
From a process point of view, my understanding is that this came out
of a townhall meeting that was hosted and sponsored by our former
colleague, Congressman Geoff Davis from Kentucky. He gathered a group
of people together and, as I understand the story, one of the
constituents raised his hand and he posed this question. He said:
Congressman, how is it possible that the Environmental Protection
Agency is contemplating a rule that is so controversial it couldn't
pass Congress? How is that even conceivable under our governance
structure that unelected bureaucrats are able to accomplish something
that the elected Representatives of the people have said ``no'' to?
Congressman Davis in a very thoughtful way began to take that in. Out
of it, he began to work with other people and put together the REINS
Act, Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, that says
this. It says that over the years, one of the weaknesses of Congress is
that this institution has delegated too much responsibility to
executive agencies. That is at the base of what we are talking about.
This is an issue of delegated authority. And since it was Congress'
mistake in terms of atrophying its authority over a period of time, the
remedy then falls on Congress to reclaim that authority.
So the gentleman from Georgia is proposing that we support this rule
around H.R. 427, and it says this: If there is a regulation that has
more than a $100 million impact on the economy, then that regulation
ought not be foisted on the economy without discussion and approval by
elected Representatives in Congress.
Now, there is a straw man argument that is out there as it relates to
this. I haven't heard it on the floor today, but I might hear it if we
continue to listen to the debate, particularly during the amendment
process and so forth.
Here is the straw man argument. The straw man argument is: If you are
in favor of the REINS Act, then you don't want any regulations
whatsoever. You want the Wild West, where only the strong survive. That
is a straw man. That is ridiculous.
What the REINS Act says is, if you are going to have a regulation, it
ought to be thoughtful, it ought to be well structured, it ought to be
well debated, and it ought not be a bureaucrat sitting on the seventh
floor of a gray building on Independence Avenue that is pursuing an
agenda--and haven't we seen plenty of that, by the way--pursuing an
agenda, an agenda that couldn't pass this place, an agenda that 218
Members of the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate
are not going to support, but an agenda that a bureaucrat with a
political agenda and so forth is trying to move forward.
Now, these numbers are staggering. According to the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, the annual cost of complying with government
regulations is $1.8 trillion. Think about the downward pressure of
that.
What the gentleman from Georgia is saying--and other supporters of
this--is let's take President Obama's admonition to the Congress and
his admonition to the public, and let's take those words at face value.
This is what the President said in an op-ed in The Wall Street
Journal. He said that overregulation ``stifles innovation'' and has a
``chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' Absolutely, that is true. That
statement is true.
President Obama said in his State of the Union address that same week
that the op-ed was published in The Wall Street Journal, January 2011,
``To reduce barriers to growth and investment . . . when we find rules
that put an unnecessary burden on business, we will fix them.''
Okay. Great news. We have got the remedy. We have got the way to fix
that.
I will tell you, I represent a constituency, Mr. Speaker, in suburban
Chicago, as you know, and so, with frequency, I am out talking to
businesses, getting in there. I represent a lot of manufacturers. I
represent a lot of financial services companies. I represent a lot of
food production, transportation, insurance, and other things.
When you talk to folks and ask them what the nature of the challenge
is, they will tell you. But what is interesting is the consistency of
the feeling of pressure that they feel as it relates to a regulatory
burden.
So the good news is we can do something about that, and the good news
is we can vote ``aye'' on the rule and we can vote ``aye'' on H.R. 427,
the REINS Act.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a very good
friend of mine and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Natural Resources.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R.
427, and I thank my friend for yielding.
This bill is the very definition of political legislation and serves
absolutely no purpose in ensuring better rules. This legislation
accomplishes nothing, aside from slowing down the administrative
rulemaking process and giving Congress the power to shoot down any
action that this majority doesn't like.
By requiring a joint resolution of congressional approval prior to
enactment, the only surefire achievement of this legislation is a
longer rulemaking process, not a better one.
Let me humor my Republican colleagues and try to give them the
benefit of the doubt. They claim that this bill is about requiring
Federal agencies to be more transparent in their actions. They want
reports on how rules impact the Federal budget. But why should
transparency only be limited to the budget? If transparency is the gold
standard, why aren't we demanding reports on how these rules impact our
most vulnerable and at-risk citizens? If we are striving for
transparency, let's be transparent about all things.

[[Page H8542]]

Yesterday, I submitted an amendment to address this point. But
unsurprisingly, this rule does not allow my amendment to be considered.
This proves yet again that this Republican majority cares more about
protecting industry than protecting our people or our planet.
My amendment was simple. It would have required the administration to
report to Congress on the greenhouse gas emission impacts associated
with any proposed rule and what any proposed rule's impacts are on low-
income communities in this country.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real.
No matter how often industry and many of my Republican colleagues try
convince us that we have nothing to worry about, no matter how much
manufactured science they gin up to create doubt, climate change is
real.
If the administration is going to be forced to justify their
rulemaking to Congress, let's make sure they include climate impacts in
their justifications. The same goes for how the rules impact our poor
communities. Why are people less important than Big Business?
My amendment aimed to remedy the negative impacts felt by these
populations by changing the definition of what constitutes a major rule
to include any rule that increases the health risks among low-income
communities, period. But apparently those concerns don't warrant a vote
on the House floor.
The majority's decision to block my amendment on climate change and
environmental justice says more about the underlying legislation than
any speech you will hear today.
This is not about good government. This is about House Republicans
wanting to put their finger on the scale to benefit corporations at the
expense of the health and safety of the American people and, yes, our
planet.
This is a bad rule and it is protecting a bad bill, and both should
be defeated.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3064, a comprehensive, 6-year
surface transportation bill that is partially paid for by restricting
U.S. companies from using so-called inversion to shrink their tax
obligations.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I won't belabor things by talking about
that, but I have to say the previous question makes an awful lot of
sense for us to do a 6-year plan. People in our States and in our
localities are looking to us to give them some certainty. I hear this
all the time from colleagues on both sides of the aisle. For us not to
do that, to me, is extremely troubling; and, I believe, in the long
haul, it is harmful to the economy of this country.
We need to pass a long-term surface transportation bill, and I
genuinely believe most Members in the House of Representatives,
Republican and Democrat, feel the same way.
The name of this bill at least flirts with being clever, I will give
the majority that. But let me tell you that we really need to rein in
around here. We need to rein in a Republican-led Congress that will no
longer bring the remaining appropriations bills to the floor because it
is more dedicated to seeing the Confederate flag fly high. I really
don't understand that.
What happened here a few days ago, we had the Interior measure going
forward. Someone complained, rightly, about the Confederate flag in
public places.

{time} 1315

All of a sudden, the Interior Appropriations and any other
appropriations went away. I predict that we will probably wind up with
a continuing resolution, rather than doing the work that the American
people sent us here to do, and that is to complete the appropriations
or remaining bills.
We need to be about the business of reining in a Republican-led
Congress that says it wants to help small businesses and then makes
sure to let the Export-Import Bank charter expire.
In the congressional district that I am privileged to serve, alone,
$964,000 in lost business and lost jobs will occur with three companies
that depend on the Export-Import Bank.
We need to rein in a Republican Congress that constantly attempts to
undermine a healthcare law. I have forgotten now; most of us can't even
remember how many times we have voted to repeal portions of or all of
the Affordable Care provision which is in effect now--5 years--and we
are still having these sideline votes that are going nowhere.
We undermine it, and it has provided millions of American citizens
the opportunity to access affordable health care--and somebody please
tell me what is wrong with that.
We are 50 years now into Medicare, and I remember, as if it were
yesterday, that then President Ronald Reagan said that it would have a
severe impact on the American economy--in other words, to paraphrase,
that the sky was going to fall.
Well, 50 years out now with Medicare, we have seen the benefits to
literally hundreds of millions of Americans who rely upon Medicare, and
we demonstrably have seen its positive.
Yes, we are learning, even with the Affordable Care Act, that what is
happening is Medicare is now having diminution of its costs, which is
necessary to rein in the cost of health care in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the
previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it has been said--and we have
moved beyond the old adage many times--if it moves, regulate it; or, if
it exists, to regulate it.
It is an interesting paradigm today because it is time for Washington
to focus on creating a regulatory system that is flexible, allowing the
market to decide the optimal path to implementation.
Regulations should be expedient and unambiguous, seeking to minimize
the uncertainty facing industries and small businesses, and we must
encourage innovation and bringing new products and processes not only
to market, but to office places everywhere. Outdated regulations should
be cleared off of the books, especially those created by those
unelected.
As we have been here today--and I have, listening to the arguments--
what is amazingly--from our side, I have wanted to talk about
regulation and the overreach of many of our branches; the gentleman
from Illinois brought it up tremendously, and I have talked about this
in the Ninth District of Georgia, where I am from--is that, for many
years, I believe Congress decided, for whatever reason, it was much
easier to give to agencies to promulgate rules and regulations. They
said it is much easier.
In fact, I have even heard from the floor today that we don't have
the expertise, and it is much better to do it offsite. I just tend to
find that is wrong.
I think it is that Congress has the ability to listen to those
experts, to listen to those opinions, and then provide something that
unelected bureaucrats do not, and that is have the people who elect us,
whom we face every time we go home--when I go to the grocery store,
when I go to the ball games, when I go to my church, when I go to the
places that I go to and they ask me questions, then they are holding
their elected official accountable--then we take that, and we balance
that to make good decisions for all, in our districts and in our
country.
What is amazing to me today is many of the arguments made today have
nothing to do--there are many things we could debate here today, but we
are here to debate--by the way, I will just remind everybody--the rule
for the REINS Act, not the plethora of other things that would be want
to, could have done, should have done--we are here on the issue of
regulatory reform. We are here on the REINS Act.
Frankly, if I was part of this administration who wants to create
this sort of entrenched Federal bureaucracy, I wouldn't want to talk
about regulatory reform either. I would want to talk about anything
else. I would want to

[[Page H8543]]

talk about anything else besides the burden that keeps crushing down
from Washington on small-business owners.
Then, of course, as well, there is the argument that did come up,
that if you really, really, really want this, undoubtedly, you are
really, really, really just wanting to protect big businesses and make
dirty--from our perspective, I have heard it before, decrease
regulations so that people are put in harm's way or that the
environment is worse off.
The reality is that is an old argument and really just needs to go
away. I come from the Ninth District of Georgia, in my humble opinion,
one of the prettiest places in all the world. Our farmers, our
residents all enjoy the clean air. They enjoy the greatness of what we
have and the businesses that are a part there and the regulations that,
when rightly controlled, help us achieve that American Dream.
There is no one who, voting for this, or even talking against it,
would want to actually say: I am voting for this because I want to
actually pick up a glass of water that is tainted and drink it, or I
want to make it worse for somebody else.
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple rule. It says let's bring forward some
fiscal sanity and regulatory sanity. Let's put it back in perspective.
I believe the circle of government, when the Founders put it out
there, was based on the fact of having the Executive to carry out the
laws, the Congress to make those laws, and the judicial branch to
interpret those laws. Our country works best when that is in alignment.
What we are asking for is let's bring it back into alignment. Let's
take the REINS Act, let's take this step toward bringing some certainty
for our businesses because, at the end of the day, when our businesses
have certainty, it does affect the people.
It is not a nameless, faceless place on a brick wall somewhere, those
business names that we want to talk about business. It is about those
people who get in their cars in their neighborhoods and their
apartments and their townhomes, and they drive to a place of work, or
they walk to their place of work, and they make a paycheck; they earn a
living so that they can do the things that I believe that they have
wanted to prosper in and to take care of their families and to move
that American Dream forward in their life.
It is up to this building to look after them. It is up to what the
Republican majority is putting forward to say: We care about all
Americans; we care about their ability to earn a living; we care about
their growth, and we care about their safety.
Proper regulation done in the proper way is the way to do that. I
will always stand on that side.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 380 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3064) to authorize highway infrastructure and safety,
transit, motor carrier, rail, and other surface
transportation programs, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3064.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 380, if
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 675.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 167, not voting 26, as follows:

[Roll No. 470]

YEAS--240

[[Page H8544]]

Gowdy
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
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 (MS)
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, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--167

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--26

Bass
Butterfield
Carter (TX)
Clawson (FL)
Cleaver
Conyers
Fudge
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Jackson Lee
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly (IL)
Lee
Lieu, Ted
Lujan Grisham (NM)
McNerney
Meeks
Moore
Rangel
Ribble
Richmond
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Sewell (AL)
Thompson (MS)
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1353

Messrs. AGUILAR, FATTAH, and WELCH changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. DIAZ-BALART and Mrs. BLACK changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Members of Armed Forces and Their
Families

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask all present to rise for
the purpose of a moment of silence.
The Chair asks that the House now observe a moment of silence in
remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their
lives in the service of our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan and their
families, and of all who serve in our Armed Forces and their families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS. 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 240,
noes 167, not voting 26, as follows:

[Roll No. 471]

AYES--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)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
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 (MS)
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, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke

NOES--167

[[Page H8545]]

Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--26

Bass
Butterfield
Carter (TX)
Clawson (FL)
Cleaver
Conyers
Fudge
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Jackson Lee
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly (IL)
Lee
Lieu, Ted
Lujan Grisham (NM)
McNerney
Meeks
Moore
Rangel
Richmond
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Sewell (AL)
Thompson (MS)
Wasserman Schultz
Zeldin

{time} 1403

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________