[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H29-H37]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 712, SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY 
DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
H.R. 1155, SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY 
                         BURDENSOME ACT OF 2015

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 580

       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. 712) to impose certain limitations on consent 
     decrees and settlement agreements by agencies that require 
     the agencies to take regulatory action in accordance with the 
     terms thereof, 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 amendments specified in this section 
     and shall not exceed one 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 Oversight and Government 
     Reform. 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 an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     114-37. 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 A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. 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.  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. 
     1155) to provide for the establishment of a process for the 
     review of rules and sets of rules, 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 the 
     Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

[[Page H30]]

     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. 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. 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.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). 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 Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 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 material on House Resolution 580, 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 
structured rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
  This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1155, the Searching for 
and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2016, 
or the SCRUB Act. This is a bipartisan measure that provides a fair and 
reasonable way to find and repeal outdated and inefficient regulations 
that are still on the books.
  It doesn't target any particular type of regulation or industry, but 
it prioritizes older, expensive rules that are ripe for improvement or 
may no longer be necessary.
  The needs of our economy, small businesses, and American families 
aren't the same today as they were 15 or 20 years ago. Thus, we should 
ensure that the rules governing the way we live and work reflect what 
is best for our country today, not what agencies thought best decades 
ago.
  I thank my colleague from Missouri for introducing this bipartisan 
solution and his staff for their hard work on this measure.
  If you put a piece of paper in the hand of every single person who 
lives in my hometown of Gainesville, Georgia, it still wouldn't equal 
the number of pages in the 2015 Federal Register. In fact, it comes in 
at a record-setting 82,036 pages. That means there were over 82,000 
pages of new rules and regulations proposed just last year.
  The Code of Federal Regulations is 235 volumes long, containing 
175,000 pages of Federal regulations. Knowing this, it should come as 
no surprise that Federal regulations impose an estimated burden of 
$1.86 trillion. That is roughly $15,000 per U.S. household and is 
higher than combined individual and corporate Federal income taxes.
  It is difficult to imagine a scenario where there is nothing in those 
thousands upon thousands of pages that can't be improved, streamlined, 
or retired. Unfortunately, American businesses and families bear the 
burden of compliance, even when a regulation is outdated, ineffective, 
or just plain unnecessary. The SCRUB Act is a commonsense step toward 
reducing unnecessary costs for families and businesses, leading to more 
economic growth and job creation.
  If you walked into a grocery store and found hundreds of expired and 
moldy food on the shelves, you would be shocked. You would be even more 
horrified if you were forced to purchase and eat them.
  In the same way, my constituents in northeast Georgia and men and 
women all across this Nation are appalled that we don't have an 
existing process in place to clear duplicative, unnecessary, or 
ineffective regulations off the pages of the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 712, 
the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015. This 
legislative package contains the text of H.R. 712 in title 1; H.R. 
1759, the ALERT Act, in title II; and H.R. 690, Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2015, in title III. Each of 
these measures were considered and marked up by the Judiciary Committee 
and are brought to the floor as reported by the committee.
  America's small businesses and job creators need relief from the 
flood of new regulations and red tape from Washington. Small business 
owners often cite government regulations as the single most important 
problem they face today.
  A heavy contributor to the burden of new regulation is the use of 
consent decrees and settlement agreements to bind Federal agencies to 
issue new rules. Regulators often cooperate with pro-regulatory 
organizations to advance their mutual agendas in this way.
  The device agencies use is simple. An organization that wants new 
regulations alleges that an agency has violated a duty to declare new 
rules. The agency and the plaintiff work out a deal under the cover of 
litigation. The deal puts the agency under judicially backed deadlines 
to issue the rules.
  These deadlines often give the public little opportunity to comment 
on proposed rules and the White House limited ability to review them. 
Deals can even require agencies to propose specific regulatory language 
negotiated by the agency and its regulation-friendly plaintiff.
  Those who will be regulated by the new deal typically do not know 
about these deals until the plaintiffs' complaints and the proposed 
decrees or settlements are filed in court. By then, it is too late. 
Frankly, it is just also unfair.
  Regulated businesses and individuals are unlikely to be able to 
intervene in the litigation. The court usually approves the deals 
before regulated parties have an opportunity to affect whether new 
regulatory costs will be imposed upon them. These regulated parties 
could be families, small businesses, farmers, ranchers, or even local 
governments.
  I introduced H.R. 712 to restore transparency, public participation, 
and judicial review protections to shine a light on one of the worst 
regulatory abuses in our system today: these ``sue and settle'' 
agreements.
  The Sunshine for Regulatory Consent Decrees and Settlements Act of 
2015 puts an end to the abuse of this practice and ensures that those 
to be regulated have a fair opportunity to participate in the 
resolution of litigation that affects them.
  The bill respects the basic rights of plaintiffs and defendants to 
manage litigation between them. As a result, the bill offers an 
effective and balanced remedy.
  We must ensure more transparency and scrutiny of consent decrees and 
settlement agreements that require new regulations. These commonsense 
reforms are needed to help control the tide of excessive and costly 
rules.
  It is time we get rid of the welcome mat outside the door of 
regulatory agencies for these suits, under which they can more easily 
issue expensive and controversial new regulations--policies that 
oftentimes could never pass Congress--claiming that ``The court made me 
do it,'' again bypassing our constitutional system. It is not a good 
idea.
  H.R. 712 addresses the weaknesses in the current system while 
preserving consent decrees as an important mechanism for settling legal 
disputes. It accomplishes this by increasing participation of affected 
regulated entities and coregulators in the negotiation in 
the consideration of decrees and settlements.

  The ability of citizens to hold government accountable is an 
important part of administrative law, but it must be appropriately 
carried out with transparency and full public participation.
  Importantly, H.R. 712 puts an end to a practice that uses taxpayer 
dollars to

[[Page H31]]

allow special interests to abuse the system and force regulators to put 
out even more regulations.
  Title II of H.R. 712, the ALERT Act, continues our work to relieve 
the regulatory burden on American families by requiring agencies to 
publicly provide information on planned regulations, estimated 
compliance costs, and other updates so that those impacted by the new 
regulations have the information they need to make financial decisions 
and plan for the future.
  Title III of H.R. 712, the Providing Accountability Through 
Transparency Act, is another good governing measure that demonstrates 
this body's commitment to making life better for all Americans. It 
requires agencies to publish a brief summary of each proposed 
regulation online and in plain language.
  Agencies do not have the right to conduct their business behind 
closed doors and hide behind an overly complex regulatory system.
  Every regulation impacts every American directly or indirectly, and 
agencies should be held accountable for the regulations they produce 
and how they communicate the new requirements to those who will be 
forced to abide by them.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday evening on these 
measures and heard testimony from the chairman and ranking member of 
the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, the chairman of 
Oversight and Government Reform, and the Government Operations 
Subcommittee ranking member.
  This combined rule makes every amendment submitted to the Rules 
Committee in order. Seven amendments to H.R. 712 will be debated on the 
House floor, and 11 amendments to H.R. 1155 will be considered.
  For H.R. 712, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate 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 Oversight and Government Reform.
  For H.R. 1155, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform.
  This rule and the underlying legislation represents regular order at 
its finest. I am proud to see the leadership of Chairman Sessions and 
Speaker Ryan are reflected in this robust and open process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Over the holidays, like all Members of this body, I was back home and 
excited about coming back in January to legislate and move the country 
forward. I was hoping we could tackle some of the big issues of the 
day: balance a Federal budget; pass immigration reform and secure our 
borders; and, finally, deal with the contentious issue of what kind of 
authorization of military force we want to give to the Commander in 
Chief.
  These are all important issues I was thinking about and reading about 
and hoping we would deal with when we got back here. Instead, here we 
are, our first day back in session. And I point out that most 
Americans, of course, had to go back to work a couple of days ago. We 
had a few days more to presumably think about what we wanted to do.
  And here it is, another attempt to strip health care from over 22 
million American families that rely on the healthcare insurance they 
have today that this reconciliation bill would take away and another 
attempt to defund Planned Parenthood and strip family planning and 
cancer screenings away from millions of women across the country, 
something that ultimately would add to healthcare costs, not to mention 
the human toll of not diagnosing cancers early, adding to the 
healthcare costs of this country by having to deal with far too many 
catastrophic events for what would have been preventable conditions, 
had they only been identified earlier through access to cancer 
screenings and family planning services at Planned Parenthood and other 
locations.

                              {time}  1300

  This bill that will be brought under one of the rules that is coming 
forward today would repeal or dismantle the Affordable Care Act for the 
62nd time.
  Again, I was hoping 2016 we would start something new. Instead, I am 
seeing the same kind of bill that Republicans have brought forward in 
2011; they brought it forward in 2012; they brought it forward in 2013; 
they brought it forward in 2014; they brought it forward in 2015; and 
here we are, not only bringing it forward in 2016, but doing it as one 
of the very first bills in the very first week that this Congress is 
back.
  Look, I rise in opposition to the rule and both of those underlying 
bills, H.R. 1155, which is called the Searching for and Cutting 
Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome, or SCRUB Act, and H.R. 
712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. These 
bills will make the American people less safe, potentially removing 
important safety and health regulations that are already in place for a 
reason.
  The gentleman from Georgia says, and I agree, there certainly could 
be unnecessary regulations on the books. Let's tackle those in a laser-
like fashion.
  And if the Chief Executive won't do it, then let's do it through a 
legislative approach that targets the authority for a specific set of 
rules that this body agrees are not necessary or are counterproductive, 
as we have done in a number of instances, and go after it, rather than 
somehow saying that, for every rule that is added arbitrarily, another 
rule needs to be eliminated, there is some presumed magic to the amount 
of words in rules.
  The gentleman cited, I think it was 86,000 pages. There is no ideal 
amount of rules. The least amount of rules and regs that can get the 
job of keeping the American people safe done is the best, but you never 
know what that is going to be, and maybe we should strip away 10,000 
pages of that, and maybe we need another thousand pages for some new 
technology and new device that could hurt people if there is not the 
right safety regulations.
  We need an adaptive administrative structure to allow our health and 
safety agencies to do their job so that when people buy a consumer 
product at the store, they have confidence it is not going to kill 
them.
  As a father of a 4-year-old and a 1-year-old, when I buy a toy and 
get holiday presents for our kids, I want to make sure that those 
products don't have lead or contaminants in them, make sure that my 
child won't be severely damaged or hurt by the failure of our health 
and safety agencies to make sure that those products are safe.
  That is common sense. I think that is what the American people want 
out of our health and safety regulators, and these bills would impede 
their ability to do that.
  Thirteen of the 16 Democrats who sat on the Judiciary Committee 
offered dissenting views on H.R. 712, which read, in part: ``This ill-
conceived bill imposes numerous new procedural burdens on agencies and 
courts, intended to dissuade them from using consent decrees and 
settlement agreements to resolve enforcement actions filed to address 
agency noncompliance with the law.''
  Effectively, what that means is this bill would reduce the cost of 
noncompliance with our regulations and laws. These burdens include the 
unworkable requirements that agencies solicit public comments on all 
proposed consent decrees and settlement agreements, and they respond to 
every single public comment before submitting them to the court.
  Now, again, that is an administrative burden that makes it impossible 
for our eight health and safety agencies to do their job. You might get 
100,000 comments on a particular consent decree or settlement 
agreement, if somebody is ramping up what we call kind of the astroturf 
side of trying to get people to write in about a particular topic. And 
to say, somehow, that every single one of those comments has to be 
responded to before submitting to the court is basically, not just a 
policy that would slow down this process, but

[[Page H32]]

would deter agencies from ever engaging in settlement agreements and 
consent decrees because it would be so prohibitive, from a staff 
perspective, they would effectively be unable to do their job.
  Like all antiregulatory proposals that have been brought forth in 
this Congress, H.R. 712 is another solution in search of a problem. 
Those in favor of the bill have failed to provide evidence to support 
their claim that agencies are somehow conspiring with plaintiffs to 
enter into consent decrees and settlement agreements.
  But even if you agree with that claim, this bill wouldn't solve it. 
All it would do is impose burdensome procedural requirements on 
agencies and courts that hamstring and prevent the use of consent 
decrees and settlements which, oftentimes, are a more efficient way for 
both plaintiffs and defendants to get to a reasonable outcome than 
interminable processes and legal bills that go on for years and years.
  The other bill to be considered under this rule is another example of 
a bill that would make the American people less safe. It is called the 
SCRUB Act, which is also a dangerous solution in search of a problem.
  Now, every branch of the government already conducts effective 
oversight through retrospective review of agency rules. And again, if 
there are rules that this body disagrees with, we should go after them, 
go after the authority that this body has chosen to give the agency to 
make health and safety regulations that keep the American people safe.
  Each branch of government already conducts oversight and overlooking 
this array of options that would provide the necessary scalpel for 
smart regulatory cuts. This is, instead, a meat-cleaver approach that 
can eliminate health and safety regulations, both good and ill-
informed.
  Rather than creating jobs, growing the economy or making Americans 
safer, this procedure would burden agencies with additional red tape 
and waste valuable agency resources and taxpayer dollars at the expense 
of the health and safety of the American people.
  As my colleagues have alluded to, H.R. 1155's sole purpose is to 
actually obstruct the safety and regulatory process by burying agencies 
in endless red tape and extra costs. It would create legal ambiguity 
that could lead to increased cost for businesses, for local communities 
that rely on certainty to plan for the future, as well as uncertainty 
for consumers and American families who don't know that the products or 
services that they are buying are safe for them or their children.
  Now, in principle, it is hard to argue against the notion that 
agencies should periodically assess whether rules they have implemented 
should be improved or repealed, and I agree with that concept. That is 
not in dispute. That is not what this bill is about.
  Rather than streamlining rulemaking, or eliminating unnecessary 
rules, which we all want to do, through a thoughtful, retrospective 
review process, even if it is required periodically, this bill, 
instead, would result in years of delays for new and necessary health 
and safety rules by requiring a new rulemaking process for any rule 
that is eliminated.
  The SCRUB Act would also establish a regulatory review commission to 
identify duplicative, redundant, or potentially obsolete regulations. 
Now, not only would the very creation of this commission be at the cost 
of taxpayers, as would its limitless resources, hours of staff work 
that the bill mandates, but the authorizing language of the commission 
binds it to consider only the costs to affected industries, while 
ignoring the cost to the general public.

  So, if an industry, if this commission existed, and they were looking 
at a regulation around dumping of toxic materials or toys that could 
hurt kids, the only charge under this statute of that commission would 
be what are the costs of compliance of this to industry, not what are 
the savings to American families who won't have to worry about their 
kid being hospitalized because of a choking hazard for a 3-year-old, or 
increased cancer rate for a product that contains lead or a 
carcinogenic agent. They can't look at that side of the equation.
  Rather than to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis, this kangaroo 
commission would rather superficially look at the cost to companies of 
making sure that their products are not dangerous to the American 
people. That is the wrong way to go about this.
  Simply put, the SCRUB Act is a solution in search of a problem. There 
are many tools available to each branch of government to conduct 
effective oversight and make smart regulatory cuts. I think it is a 
fine criticism of any administration that they haven't done enough in 
that regard, and they should. And this body should encourage any 
President to move forward with cutting unnecessary regulations that 
cost businesses money and don't threaten the public health and safety.
  But agencies must adhere to the robust requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act already, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
and the Congressional Review Act, and if some of those can be 
consolidated, along with new ideas to cut red tape and regulation, you 
will find strong bipartisan support for that concept.
  But that is not what this bill does. This bill ties up the ability of 
our agencies that this Congress has authorized to help keep the 
American people and American families safe with additional red tape and 
regulations. It creates a biased commission that, rather than looking 
at the costs and benefits of health and safety requirements, only looks 
at the costs.
  Moreover, final regulations are subject to review by Federal courts 
already, who are a final backstop to ensure that agencies have not 
violated the authority that this body has given them, and that they 
have satisfied all the applicable statutes, and whether agencies have 
continued input from relevant stakeholders. We have set that process 
up.
  Now, if we have a thoughtful way to improve that process, around 
encouraging more stakeholder involvement, looking at the authority that 
we have given each agency in certain areas, by all means, let's discuss 
those kinds of bills, rather than short-circuiting the very process 
that Congress has put in place to help reduce unnecessary regulations.
  In many cases, Congress not only mandates that agencies issue a rule, 
they are doing the work that we have required them to do, but we also 
prescribe the process already by which they must do so.
  This bill, if it passes, will continue to waste the government's 
time, and we are wasting more by even considering this today, as well 
as this reconciliation bill that would take healthcare coverage away 
from 22 million Americans.
  You would think, Mr. Speaker, that if Republicans were bringing 
forward a bill to remove healthcare insurance from 22 million 
Americans, you would think that they would have a plan for those 22 
million Americans, but they do not. They simply strip them of their 
existing health care.
  Twenty-two millions Americans will not be able to see their doctor 
that they have been seeing for years, know that they can go to the 
hospital if they need it, or have any adequate health insurance under 
this reconciliation bill.
  It defunds Planned Parenthood. It strips affordable planning and 
lifesaving cancer screenings away from millions of women across the 
country, precisely at the time that those cancer screenings would be 
more necessary than ever, if the SCRUB Act passed, which would 
hamstring our own Federal agencies in their ability to prevent 
carcinogenic agents from being in consumer products and food products 
that American people consume.
  So, again, through these set of bills, the Republicans are saying: We 
are going to not do the job that we have told our agencies to do in 
keeping the American people safe; and, at the same time, the results of 
that lack of safety--more hospital visits, more disease, more sickness, 
more children choking, more sick kids--we are going to make sure that a 
lot more of them don't have health care when they need it because of 
the health and safety regulations that we have removed through tying 
them up in red tape for years after years.
  That is not what the American people want. That is not what my 
constituents want.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H33]]

  

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as has already been said just a 
little bit earlier on this floor, here we go again. I guess the straw 
harvest was good this fall because, like my colleague, I was hoping 
that there would be some stuff changed. Undoubtedly, it is not, because 
the straw harvest was good, and it is now time to put up straw men when 
we talk about regulatory reform, and we are back at it again.
  I want to comment in just a moment on regular order and the fact that 
stuff has been talked about.
  We have two separate rules today. This is a rule that deals with the 
regulatory issues and regulatory reforms, two bills, and we have a rule 
that is going to come up here in just a little bit that deals with 
repealing ObamaCare and dealing with the heinous issues of Planned 
Parenthood. That is a separate bill.
  I would want to talk about something else too, instead of the 
regulatory issues that are here, because they do matter, they do create 
jobs.
  As we look at this, the one thing that always comes across, Mr. 
Speaker, as we think about this, is a very clear choice, especially 
from constituents all over the country, in my district, in particular, 
when I think about this.
  One of the main arguments against this is that it will burden the 
government, so it is bad? The problem is, the government right now, 
through regulatory process, is burdening small business, is burdening 
families who simply want to be able to get up, go to work, do their 
job, and be free of unnecessary burdensome regulations.
  Again, we want to talk about throwing up the straw man that the 
Republicans are out here poisoning the air, bad paint, terrible ideas, 
killing kids. That is not what we are talking about.
  Again, the harvest is ripe; the straw is being developed. And instead 
of talking about getting rid of regulatory process, we are going to 
talk about, oh, we are taking away safety.
  There is no Republican on this side of the aisle that I have ever 
heard stand from this place, or from anywhere else, and say: I want 
dirty water. Give me choking air. Give me paint that is bad. Give me 
products that are terrible. That is not what is ever said. And when 
that argument is brought up, it simply cheapens and demeans the 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was just said was that we don't 
want to have public comments, that you have to answer to public 
comments, that a government agency would have to answer to public 
comment. In fact, one of the issues is H.R. 712 actually addresses this 
because these sue and settlement agreements can take place without the 
affected party even being in the room or even know it is happening.
  Tell me where that is fair. Show me where two people can go in a room 
and decide what is best for me in a business environment. Show where 
that is fair. It is not fair and you can't argue that it is.
  Public comment to the government is expected, and public comment 
should be respected before these regulations or these consent decrees 
are put out.

                              {time}  1315

  We all have various roles. The executive branch has their role, and 
there are places where they meet. And we are appreciative of the work 
that is done. What is being talked about in these bills is, let's make 
it more efficient and let's make it better because what we have in 
Washington is, I would rather see this body take up the policy 
argument, this body discuss the billions of dollars in costs that are 
being implemented on businesses, and not the agencies who have no 
answerability to the public. So when we look at this, these are just 
the small things. We want to talk about what is actually coming to the 
floor.
  I have the privilege of sharing the Rules Committee with my friend 
from Washington State, who is going to speak. I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, a 
fellow member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time to speak on 
this important topic. I am very pleased to be able to contribute to 
this conversation.
  Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, I am a farmer. I can tell you that 
growing crops, cultivating crops, can teach you a lot about a 
responsible regulatory process. That may sound like a strange 
statement, but let me just say I primarily grow hops and grapes, two 
crops that require a trellis system. Neither of these crops would be 
successfully grown without a good, strong trellis system that gives 
them structure, direction, and support. However, on the flip side, if 
the trellises aren't constructed properly, if they are not maintained 
and kept in good working order, the crop growth would be affected. It 
would be stunted, and production in the end would suffer.
  Our regulatory process is very similar, Mr. Speaker. Congress passes 
laws intended to provide a progrowth structure for our economy. 
Regulatory agencies build out and fill in the details based on the 
directions from us, from Congress. However, sometimes agencies provide 
regulations that can significantly harm people and harm businesses and 
the jobs they are supposed to be supporting. Many times these 
regulations exceed or are in contravention to the discretion or 
authority provided by Congress. Many times it seems as if the 
regulators write these regulations for the sake of regulations with 
little regard for the consequences to those that are forced to comply.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation, as these bills will provide Congress and the 
American public with new tools to ensure that regulations truly have 
the public's best interest in mind and do not hinder economic expansion 
and growth.
  For example, H.R. 712 will prevent what are called the sue and settle 
tactics that are used to circumvent the normal rulemaking process. It 
has been well documented that, on numerous regulations, the 
administration has intentionally dragged its feet and failed to propose 
a regulation in a timely fashion. So what happens then, they can be 
sued and ultimately settle on the terms decided solely by the court, by 
the administration, and by the plaintiff.
  This tactic has removed the cost-benefit analysis required for many 
economically significant regulations. But more importantly, it has 
eliminated stakeholder engagement in the regulatory process as well as 
the public's right to comment on dozens of regulations with compliance 
costs totalling in the hundreds of millions to the billions of dollars.
  This legislation also includes other commonsense measures, such as 
requiring agencies to post on the Internet in plain language 100-word 
summaries detailing what a regulation does. Few individuals or small 
businesses have either the time or the fleets of lawyers needed to pore 
over hundreds of pages of regulations and be expected to comment or 
comply.
  I was also proud to cosponsor H.R. 1155, which this rule also 
provides for consideration. It is estimated that the current Federal 
code spans more than 175,000 pages. This important legislation will 
enact a commission to review the regulatory code and make 
recommendations on which regulations are necessary, which are 
overlapping, and which are duplicative or obsolete. Wouldn't it be a 
refreshing change, Mr. Speaker, if, for once, Washington, D.C., could 
actually cut red tape instead of creating new barriers to economic 
growth?
  Too often regulations have begun to have costs that far outweigh 
their benefits, seriously harming those they were intended to regulate, 
help, and protect. Regulations resulting from sue and settle are often 
impossible to comply with, and the public is removed from the 
rulemaking process. We can and we must do better. These commonsense 
reforms in H.R. 712 and H.R. 1155 will help reverse the trend of 
regulations stunting growth and stalling production and restore the 
progrowth-oriented structure and direction that Congress has intended.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that sometimes affected parties 
aren't in the room during consent decree or settlement discussions. 
That is a far cry from having to respond to potentially hundreds of 
thousands or millions of public comments one on one.

[[Page H34]]

  So, again, if there is a problem that they are trying to solve, let's 
look at who is in the room and who the affected parties are in making 
sure they are part of the process, not preventing any meaningful effort 
for consent decree or settlement from even going forward by putting a 
completely impossible requirement to fulfill, given the staff that they 
have, of having to reply to every public comment when we all know that 
public comments can be artificially ginned up through an Astroturf 
process to deliberately bog down a process that otherwise could more 
expeditiously settle a dispute than years and years of legal fees on 
both sides.
  I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
Watson Coleman) to further discuss today's effort to strip away health 
care from 22 million American families and to remove the ability of 
hundreds of thousands of American women to have access to cancer 
screenings across our country.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a brand-new year, but you wouldn't know it if you 
look at what we will be voting on this week.
  Across the investigations of three separate committees in this body, 
eight States, and four Federal court cases, not a single shred of 
evidence has been found indicating that Planned Parenthood has broken 
any laws. In fact, the Oversight and Government Reform chairman, Jason 
Chaffetz, has admitted that he found no evidence that Planned 
Parenthood did anything wrong.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore the 
facts here. Planned Parenthood is a healthcare organization serving 3 
million Americans each year. In the course of their lifetime, one in 
five Americans will receive care from Planned Parenthood. Despite 
arguments to the contrary, there are simply not enough health centers 
to fill the gap.
  If we defund Planned Parenthood, we will be denying care to millions 
of families. We will be taking away options from underserved 
communities across the country--rural, urban, and otherwise. We will be 
saying to women, once again, that how and when they get health care is 
not their choice; it is the choice of a body overwhelmingly run by men.
  When I got to Congress last January, I thought I would be voting on 
legislation that would improve the lives of my constituents, Mr. 
Speaker, giving them better wages, jobs, stronger education, and an 
economy that started at a level playing field. Instead, I have been on 
the floor more times than I want to count urging my colleagues on the 
other side to give up the attacks on women's health.
  It is a new year, Mr. Speaker. We have a new Speaker. Enough is 
enough. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee and my good friend.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule 
and the bills that this rule brings to the floor, and I thank the 
gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. I primarily want to 
talk for a couple moments, though, about health care.
  In the mid 1990s, I went to a reception, and the doctor who delivered 
me came and brought my records. I asked him how much he charged back 
then. He said he charged $60 for 9 months of care and the delivery, if 
they could afford it.
  I recently read an article by a woman who wrote that you have to be 
over 50 now to remember a time when health care was affordable. And it 
used to be affordable, Mr. Speaker, for almost everybody. But then the 
Federal Government got into it.
  Several years ago, I asked the administrator of a hospital in 
Knoxville how much medical costs would go down if you could get the 
government out of health care. His estimate was that it would come down 
50 percent overnight and another 50 percent over the next 6 months so 
that costs would then be only about 25 percent of what they are now.
  When the Federal Government got so heavily into health care, costs 
just exploded. A few people in companies got filthy rich, but almost 
everyone else got screwed. Now only a few billionaires can afford the 
costs of a major illness.
  We need to make health care affordable again. We can't do that by 
making it even more bureaucratic than it already is.
  The bill this rule brings to the floor is an attempt to give patients 
more control over their healthcare dollars and give the Federal 
Government less control and to stop making a very few rich off of the 
system because they know how to work the system. It is an effort to 
help bring down some of these ridiculous and exorbitant costs.
  We can't get the government out of health care entirely. But thank 
goodness we don't pay for other necessities, like food, clothing, and 
housing, like we do for medical care. Thank goodness there is still 
primarily a free market for other necessities. If we paid for food the 
same way we pay for medical care, we would see crazy prices for steaks 
and other types of food. Or if we paid for cars the same way we paid 
for medical care, most people wouldn't have even been able to afford a 
Yugo.
  We need to move in a new direction, a less bureaucratic direction, 
and a more affordable direction. This bill is an important first step 
in that better direction.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, last year, newly elected Speaker Ryan made a 
New Year's resolution that the House would once again consider serious 
legislation for the benefit of the American people. Yesterday was the 
very first day of our legislative session, and the bill we are 
considering is not a serious proposal. Yes, we are voting on repealing 
the Affordable Care Act for the 62nd time this Congress and attacking 
women's health for the 11th time, and we are, in fact, going to have 
the 5th vote on the defunding Planned Parenthood.
  Now, we know that Speaker Ryan is a committed athlete. In fact, his 
favorite workout is the P90X. It is based on repetition. An exercise 
repeating the same action over and over again can lead to success. I am 
sure we all admire Speaker Ryan's commitment to a healthy lifestyle. 
Normally, doing additional reps builds muscle mass, but the one muscle 
Republicans aren't exercising is their brain. Repeating the same, tired 
repeal and defund bill does not lead to more healthy laws. It just 
makes the American people tired and sore at the waste of taxpayer 
money.
  American women are scratching their heads thinking: Why does the 
Republican leadership hate us so much? Why is it they want to take away 
our rights? Why is it they want to take away the very services that 
actually protect life? Planned Parenthood protects life by providing 
more than 900,000 cancer screenings a year, and millions more receive 
services through Planned Parenthood. Why are Republicans trying to deny 
us from accessing this very vital health care?
  It is time for the Republicans to stop shoving these unhealthy, 
wasteful bills down our throats. Put down the political equivalent of a 
giant plate of nachos and exercise the hard job of governing.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this flabby rule.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind those who 
are here that the rule's focus here is dealing with helping regulatory 
reform burden. I do appreciate the opportunity of Republicans too to 
take the burden off of individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene) to further discuss the Republican efforts in 
our very first week back to take health care away from 22 million 
Americans and remove resources that women have in place to engage in 
lifesaving cancer screenings and other affordable family planning 
services.
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  I wish I could say I am surprised that House leaders are kicking off 
2016 the same way they spent 2015--attacking women's health--but I am 
not. For

[[Page H35]]

anyone who has forgotten, let me refresh your memory.
  Last year, the House voted 10 times to attack women's health. That 
included voting to restrict reproductive health care in private 
insurance, enact a sweeping 20-week abortion ban, and allow employers 
to discriminate against workers for using birth control.
  Now we are voting to defund Planned Parenthood for the fifth time, 
even though three House committees tried and failed to uncover any 
evidence of wrongdoing. What is worse, today's vote takes place before 
the Republicans' taxpayer-funded select committee to investigate 
Planned Parenthood has even held its first meeting. It is shameful. 
Americans expect us to focus on facts, not ideology. So far, there are 
no facts to justify defunding a healthcare provider that 2.7 million 
Americans rely on.
  Here is what we do know: Planned Parenthood provides nearly 900,000 
cancer screenings each year; 78 percent of Planned Parenthood patients 
are low-income; and the services provided by Planned Parenthood help 
prevent more than 500,000 unintended pregnancies every year.
  With each passing week, it becomes clear this Chamber isn't 
interested in the facts. It is only interested in pushing an extreme 
ideological agenda designed to take away women's constitutional right 
to choose.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Here we are, week one of 2016 and we have a multifaceted Republican 
attack on women's health. On the one hand, we are removing the 
abilities of our safety agencies from making sure that products that 
are sold are safe. Whether that is shampoo or soap or makeup or a toy 
for your child, we rely on our health and safety regulators to make 
sure that nothing that can hurt the American people is put forward. 
Oftentimes, when there is some kind of litigation around that, we have 
a process that allows that to be settled to keep dangerous products off 
the marketplace.
  In setting up this commission that would only be able to look at the 
cost of regulation rather than savings from a health and safety 
regulation, you are deliberately putting in place a process that will 
lead to additional costs going forward because it doesn't look at both 
sides of the equation.
  I would be supportive, as would many Democrats, of a thoughtful 
approach to a red tape reduction commission, to a regulatory reform 
commission. What should it look like? It needs to have both industry at 
the table, as well as consumer health advocates, as well as thoughtful 
leaders to make up the balance of that committee to side with either 
side based on the merits. Importantly, their charge needs to be to look 
at the costs and benefits measured through economic measurements that 
the staff will be charged with doing, the costs and benefits of 
reforms, to find out and eliminate regulations that cost more than they 
benefit and to make sure that we improve and enhance regulations where 
we can have more savings and more benefit to the American people at a 
lower cost.
  It is all about health and protecting the American people and 
economic efficiency, and the commission can accomplish that. But not 
the dangerous attack on women's health through this commission in this 
bill, coupled the very same week with defunding Planned Parenthood, 
taking low-cost cancer screenings away from hundreds of thousands of 
Americans, telling 22 million American families you no longer have 
health insurance, sending a cancellation notice in the first week of 
the year to 22 million American families that you can't go see the 
doctor, you can't go to the hospital or you are going to be bankrupt. 
That is not the kind of progress the American people want.
  Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, guess what. Neither of these bills are going 
to become law. President Obama stated he will veto these bills. These 
bills that hamper the ability of our agencies to protect the health of 
the American people, these bills that defund Planned Parenthood, this 
reconciliation, they will be vetoed.
  Therefore, the first week back, while the Republicans are trying to 
cancel healthcare insurance for 22 million American families, while 
they are trying to prevent low-income women from having access to 
cancer screenings, while they are trying to remove the ability of our 
health and safety agencies to keep our American people safe, they will 
not succeed. They are wasting time. Therefore, these bills come at a 
serious opportunity cost to the American people.
  The American people want us to use their time and their money to 
address real problems: to fix our broken immigration system and restore 
order and security to our border, and to help the millions of Americans 
suffering under an unlivable minimum wage by increasing it. They want 
us to tackle reforming our archaic Tax Code by getting rid of special 
interest tax loopholes and giving the American people lower tax rates 
in return, rather than allowing Americans to avoid taxes by putting 
assets in overseas shell corporations.
  When I was back in my district over the holidays, I didn't have a 
single constituent say that they wanted to remove or go after the 
process of creating health and safety regulations. They wanted to hear 
what we are going to do to create an environment that allows the 
private sector to create jobs. For that to occur, the American people 
need to have confidence that the products and services they buy are not 
going to injure or kill them.
  But instead, what is on the docket so far? Bills that would actually 
increase red tape and disable agencies from generating meaningful 
rulemaking by burying them in having to do mandatory responses, not 
just to the affected parties, but to every member of the public that 
wants to comment on a particular settlement or consent decree; and it 
hands out special interest goodies through the regulatory review 
process by a commission that would fully be under control of those who 
have a vested interest in preventing even the most commonsense health 
and safety regulations.
  This may be a new year, but it looks like we are playing the same 
political games.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would 
close a glaring loophole in our gun laws allowing suspected terrorists 
to legally buy firearms.
  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. Jenkins of West Virginia). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this bill that we would like to bring 
forward, if we can defeat the previous question, would help keep the 
American people safe. The bill would bar the sale of firearms and 
explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
  On this day, today, Mr. Speaker, there are Americans that can't 
legally fly because we don't trust them to be in the cabin of an 
aircraft and are on the no-fly list, but they can quietly assemble an 
arsenal of deadly weapons fully legally. In what world does that make 
sense? With the increased risk of terrorist threats, with the 
occurrences in France, and with what happened in San Bernardino, how 
can we possibly stand by and say we don't trust somebody because of 
what we know about them through law enforcement and through the 
authorized practices that this body has set in place to investigate 
terrorism? We know enough about them to know that they shouldn't be on 
an airplane; but if they want to quietly assemble an arsenal of dozens 
of deadly weapons, that is fine, why not let them do it?
  We can fix that. By simply defeating the previous question, we can 
bring forward that bill. I am confident it would have overwhelming 
support. We can pass it. It is a bipartisan bill. Rather than strip 
health care from 22 million Americans, rather than risk the health of 
American families by removing the health and safety processes that we 
want to put in place to make sure that products and services are safe, 
rather than defunding Planned Parenthood and preventing hundreds of 
thousands

[[Page H36]]

of American women from having low-cost access to cancer screenings and 
reproductive health services, instead, let's make sure that those who 
represent a terrorist threat to our Nation are not able to quietly 
assemble deadly arsenals to commit terrorist acts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. 
Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  As this debate has come forward, I want to just point out, as a 
member of the Rules Committee talking about rules bringing forth the 
process for which debate will happen, I want to commend Chairman 
Sessions and the Rules staff and also leadership--the chairman has done 
a great job of leadership under Speaker Ryan and others--who have 
brought forth two rules today. I know in the last, probably, about an 
hour, that has become a little conflated, but this rule deals with 
regulatory burden. This rule deals with the issue of jobs and job 
creation.
  I, like my friend from Colorado, have had many conversations with 
many folks in my district, and, yes, it does come around to job 
creation. One of the ways that you can do that, and one of the ways 
that we are looking to be able to do this, is to free them up.
  According to research that came out from the American Action Forum, 
the savings from these bills that we are talking about under this rule 
can save a total of $48 billion annually and save 1.5 billion paperwork 
hours. If you want to make--and I have run small businesses, just as 
others in here have. If you want to make your employees more effective, 
have better contact with customers, come up with new ideas, and do 
creation, then let them do their jobs and not have to be burdened with 
government intrusion. This is a savings here.
  Now, again, it has been stated over and over again, and we are at the 
point now we are not going to be able to overcome this, so here is the 
way. Mr. Speaker, just understand these are the parameters in which we 
speak.
  When Republicans want to stand up, this Republican majority wants to 
stand up for businessowners and families who get up every day taking 
care of their families, who go to work, find jobs, get good employment. 
When we bring up ways that, unfortunately, as the other side 
characterized it, burdens government, then we are portrayed as wanting 
to ruin the environment, kill the babies, kill the toys, whatever it is 
that they want to come up with. This is just a false narrative that 
needs to cease.
  The regulatory nation that we have become, apart from the 
constitutional process that is set forth by Members elected from their 
districts to come forward and put forth ideas, give those to the 
executive branch to carry out, not make up new laws or to enter into 
consent agreements without the litigant standing party available, is 
wrong. It is not about anything but fairness. It is about cleaning up 
government. It is about limiting government. It is about keeping our 
airways safe. It is about having clean water. It is about having clean 
air. It is about doing the things that government should be doing in a 
limited process, not simply a jobs program inside the beltway.
  When you have regulators who regulate banks who have never worked in 
a bank and never gave a loan, that is not right. When you have folks 
who never get outside of a cubicle but yet are able to, without input 
many times, decide how farmers who have worked their land for many 
years are to react, that is not right. This rule today lets us go 
toward a forward step of doing just that. You see, it is about real 
people. It is not about bureaucracies.
  It is about real people, like Mr. Puckett from Columbus, Mississippi. 
He has been creating jobs for over 100 years in his family. He has a 
family-owned brick company. Mr. Puckett attributes the success of his 
business to hardworking employees and loyal employees. Unfortunately, 
when I met Mr. Puckett, the conversation was not so optimistic. He 
testified in the Judiciary Committee in 2014 because his company had 
just lost 50 jobs as a result of two regulations crafted behind closed 
doors.
  In a nation of over 300 million, 50 jobs may not seem like a lot, but 
in the town of Columbus, Mississippi, it is the difference between 50 
families having food on the table or going hungry. Every State, every 
congressional district has their Mr. Pucketts. No business has been 
untouched by the toll of costly and overly burdensome regulations.
  This probably, Mr. Speaker, is one of the greatest times to be here 
and to speak about this because the choice is clear. And you can try to 
conflate it and talk about other things, but this rule deals with these 
bills that deal with real jobs, such as Mr. Puckett. It deals with the 
real priorities of the Republican majority, saying we want to put 
people back to work, we want to make business more efficient, and we 
want to have rules and regulations that are smart, sensible, and safe. 
To say otherwise is not fair for the American people. In fact, it is 
just a coverup for a society or a governing philosophy that says: 
Bureaucracy knows best; government knows best; let us just continue to 
grow.

                              {time}  1345

  In fact, it was said earlier today that we have all of these 
executive orders and all of these other rules that are designed to help 
streamline regulatory burdens. If that is what they are supposed to be 
doing, then they are failing because all we do is keep growing and 
adding costs everywhere we go.
  I can also understand my friend's concern about the government having 
to answer public comments because I guess the EPA didn't want to have 
to answer to itself when the EPA broke the law with the social media 
push for the water rules that the GAO just nailed them on.
  You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. You can't not want to 
answer to the American public and then, when you want to influence your 
own regulatory agenda, send out false narratives and break the law. 
This is not Doug Collins' opinion or anybody else's. As reported in The 
New York Times, it is the GAO's.
  I understand that is why the system is broken, and that is why the 
system needs to be fixed. That is why the vote is a ``yes'' on this 
rule, on bipartisan legislation, by the way, and on legislation that 
has been bipartisan. This is what we are talking about in this rule.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. When Members come to the floor for this 
rule, they are voting for a government that becomes more efficient, 
they are voting for a government that is responsive to those who are 
being affected, they are voting for those who are responsible for 
actually being able to do what they are being gifted to do in their 
communities. That is what this rule does, Mr. Speaker.
  In just a few moments, my friend from Georgia will talk about getting 
this country back in shape and will talk about some other bills we are 
offering today to free up the American people.
  But in this rule, the question is: Are we standing for the Mr. 
Pucketts of the world, the individuals and the businesses of the world, 
or, as has been said on the floor today, are we more concerned about 
burdening a government agency?
  I think I know what the answer of the American people is: Government, 
do what you are supposed to do. Do it within a limited form. Let us be 
the generation of wealth and income in this country. Let us be the 
capitalist system that we have brought this country into.
  When we do that, then we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. 
That is what this Republican majority is fighting for. That is what 
this rule is. I would ask that everyone vote for this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 580 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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

[[Page H37]]

     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. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        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.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________