[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1363-H1368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 998, SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING
REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 83, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO ``CLARIFICATION OF EMPLOYER'S
CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AN ACCURATE RECORD OF EACH
RECORDABLE INJURY AND ILLNESS''
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 150 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 150
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. 998) 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 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. 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 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.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 83) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of
Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's Continuing
Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each
Recordable Injury and Illness''. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
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 (Mr.
Hastings), 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 150, 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 forward
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for
consideration of H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, and H.J. Res. 83, a
resolution disapproving a Department of Labor rule relating to employee
recordkeeping.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each piece of legislation,
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the
[[Page H1364]]
chairman and ranking member of the Education and the Workforce
Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit for both
pieces of underlying legislation. Additionally, the rule makes in order
12 amendments--11 from our friends across the aisle--to the SCRUB Act.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from
Chairman Chaffetz and Congressman Cartwright on behalf of the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, and Congressmen Byrne and Courtney on
behalf of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Both pieces of legislation before us today take steps to remove
unnecessary burdens that the government has levied on hardworking
Americans from coast to coast. The regulatory burden in this country is
staggering. In fact, the Code of Federal Regulations spans more than
178,000 pages and contains more than 1 million regulatory restrictions.
Let's let that sink in for just a moment, Mr. Speaker. Let's think
about that for a second. 178,000 pages and over 1 million regulatory
restrictions. An average of nearly 12,000 new restrictions are added
each year.
Let me be clear. Some regulations are necessary. They are completely
what we need to have. I don't believe that all regulation is bad. So
before we go down that path, let me just say that this is a fact, and
we can continue this.
I believe we need clean air, clean water, smart standards for how we
handle nuclear energy, and worker protections, just to name a few. I
also believe that we have allowed the regulatory scheme to run amok.
Congress has ceded power to agencies, which have implemented more and
more regulations, oftentimes with less and less benefit to Americans.
Far too many regulations offer our citizens minimal benefits at
confounding cost. Taxpayers and businesses alike are withering under
regulations that are outdated, irrelevant, and nonsensical.
Do we really need a regulation to mandate what kind of latch a baker
uses on a flour bin? Do we really want to tell people that their
dishwashers are forbidden to use enough water to actually clean their
dishes, forcing them to wash their dishes twice rather than it actually
conserving water?
Unfortunately, these stories aren't works of fiction. They are real
regulations put in place by Federal agencies. We have to take steps to
restore common sense to the regulatory process and clean up the
regulation roster.
It is time we identify and abolish those regulations that are
pointless, those that prevent people from doing their jobs, and those
that are inefficient and ineffective. The SCRUB Act, Mr. Speaker, takes
steps to do just that and contributes to our efforts to rein in
overregulation.
The SCRUB Act, introduced by my friend from Missouri, Congressman
Jason Smith, establishes a bipartisan Retrospective Regulatory Review
Commission to identify unnecessary rules that are hindering economic
growth. The commission will then identify which rules need to be
repealed immediately and which ones can be addressed by more flexible
procedures outlined in the legislation.
The commission will report these findings to Congress, and Congress
can then vote on these recommendations and take steps either to begin
immediately repealing regulations or implementing a CutGo process.
Importantly, the commission created by the SCRUB Act will also ensure
that redundant regulations from different agencies will be reviewed.
Currently, agencies implement their directives absent a systemwide
view, meaning that overlapping and even conflicting regulations are
enacted far too often.
From conversations with my constituents in northeast Georgia, I have
witnessed how overregulation is stifling growth in our communities. The
remedy for this economic anemia is to get unnecessary regulations off
the books and, instead, focus on enforcing regulations that are
actually achieving benefits for our neighbors.
The second piece of legislation that this rule provides for also
returns us to reasonable policies that reinstate the spirit of the law.
H.J. Res. 83, introduced by my fellow Rules Committee member,
Congressman Byrne from Alabama, utilizes the Congressional Review Act
to overturn a rule from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, or OSHA.
Worker protections are critically important, yet they lose their
purpose when they fail to protect workers and jobs effectively. Too
often, OSHA forgets that mission, and the rule we are talking about
today is the latest example of misguided regulatory zeal.
In the waning days of the previous administration, OSHA put forth a
final rule implementing punitive standards on employers, a move that
contradicts the underlying statute. Under the law, employers are
required to record and maintain logs of workplace injuries and
illnesses that occur during a 5-year period; however, the employers can
only be cited for recordkeeping violations within a 6-month time
period.
Now, think about what was just said here. They have to keep it for 5
years, but they can only be cited for violations within a 6-month time
period.
This arrangement is constructive. Logs should be kept up to date so
that businesses can make informed decisions about health and safety in
the workplace. This requirement encourages businesses to improve safety
measures in a timely manner. However, the previous administration
decided to rewrite the law through regulation in a way that penalizes
and burdens small businesses without achieving meaningful benefit. OSHA
finalized a rule that would extend the threat of penalty for
recordkeeping violations up to 5 years.
Aside from ignoring existing law and court decisions that directly
contradict this new regulation, OSHA has chosen to punish small
businesses for paperwork violations rather than focusing resources on
improving worker safety.
We can agree that keeping our workplaces safe is nonnegotiable, but
OSHA has repeatedly overstepped its mission in order to collect fines
and apply oppressive rules at the expense of opportunities to cultivate
healthier working conditions. It is time to bring this regulatory
mischief to an end, which is why I am glad to see this resolution of
disapproval to overturn the most recent OSHA overstep.
Mr. Speaker, both the SCRUB Act and the resolution of disapproval
provided for by this rule take commonsense steps to unlock the
regulatory shackles Federal agencies have put on our economy and
taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the rule for consideration. As my
friend across the aisle has already noted, this rule bundles together
two unrelated pieces of legislation. We are developing a pattern here
of doing that in the Rules Committee.
The first of these is H.J. Res. 83, a Congressional Review Act
resolution of disapproval that seeks to overturn a Department of Labor
rule on workplace injuries, undermining workplace safety and health in
the process.
The second measure is H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, which establishes a
new commission to review Federal regulations with the aim of needlessly
politicizing and, thereby, undermining the regulatory framework that
keeps our air clean and our water safe to drink.
I note that my friend on the other side of the aisle did not mention
that this commission will cost $30 million for work that last night's
presenter at the Rules Committee said that Congress can do, the
argument being that Congress doesn't have enough staff so we are going
to send it over to nine people and pay $30 million, starting, to have
them do the work that we in Congress should be doing.
Beginning with the CRA resolution--the 14th such resolution
considered by the House this month--the Republican leadership is
continuing its onslaught against well-thought-out and measured
regulations. I get it. Republicans control the House, the Senate, and
the White House. They are desperately trying to ram through their
priorities before anyone notices what they are doing.
It is interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, where the Republican majority
has focused its attention throughout the past month. I can't help but
notice that 40 days into Donald John Trump's administration, he has not
put forth one single jobs measure. Democrats, on the
[[Page H1365]]
other hand, continue to talk about the need for good, well-paying jobs.
The United States Senate put out the Democrats' trillion-dollar jobs
plan that anybody can read on their website on where we stand when it
comes to well-paying jobs.
Yet, as we advocate for our plan to rebuild our Nation's
infrastructure and create over 15 million jobs in the process,
Republicans pass measures to drug-test applicants for unemployment
insurance and repeal rules that require Federal contractors to disclose
violations of Federal labor and worker safety laws.
This resolution repeals a Department of Labor rule pertaining to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The rule in question
requires employers to keep and maintain accurate records of every
recordable injury and illness in federally mandated logs for a period
of 5 years.
It is worth mentioning that this policy has been upheld in cases
dating back to 1993. The rule, when implemented, added zero new
compliance obligations, zero new reporting obligations, and cost a
total of--you guessed it--zero dollars. Yet, once again, this is what
we are spending our time on this week: repealing a thoughtful rule
designed to protect workers.
I am particularly concerned by this resolution as it actually
jeopardizes workplace safety by allowing employers to avoid penalties
for the underreporting of injuries over many years. Longstanding
workplace hazards will and can certainly be masked.
{time} 1230
This makes it less likely that employers or employees will take
corrective actions or that OSHA will find the hazards when they do an
inspection, leaving workers in danger.
It is also worth noting that due to its very small budget, OSHA is
only able to inspect a workplace, on average, once every 140 years. You
heard me correctly, once every 140 years. That makes data even more
important. Yet, by diminishing the reliability of a worksite's injury
data, which some employers systematically underreport, this resolution
also takes away OSHA's ability to protect workers from the most
significant hazards.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the past week, concerned Americans attended
town halls across the country, and for those who were actually able to
meet with their Republican representative in Congress, the
conversations focused on protecting health care, creating jobs, and
protecting the environment. At these meetings, constituents did not ask
for fewer workplace protections, they did not ask for Congress to act
to make it easier for people with severe mental illness to purchase
guns, they didn't ask for Congress to ease disclosure requirements for
oil companies making payments to foreign governments, and yet these are
the things the Republican majority has already chosen to focus on this
month.
Watching the news, I did not hear one person say: if only Congress
would repeal anticorruption rules, undermine my retirement security,
and then allow endangered animals on national wildlife refuges to be
killed using inhumane methods, if only Congress would do these things,
my life would be better. Not one person, Mr. Speaker. Yet, in the past
month, the House voted to do all of the things that I just mentioned. I
submit to the American people watching at home right now that this is
the face of today's Republican Party. Tell me who you think is really
on your side.
Turning our attention to the SCRUB Act, this bill would establish a
$30 million commission with unlimited subpoena authority that is
empowered to dismantle long-established, science-based public health
and safety standards. The SCRUB Act would undermine the ability of
agencies to react to immediate public health threats by adopting the
regulatory CutGo process. The CutGo system is, in my opinion,
completely detached from reality. This requirement will prohibit
agencies from issuing any new rules, even in the case of emergencies or
imminent harm to the public, until they repeal an existing rule to
offset the cost. Along with bills that have already come to the House
floor under this Republican Congress, as well as Donald Trump's
executive actions mandating a regulatory freeze, this legislation
demonstrates a continued attack on standards set in place to protect
American families.
I guess it is not all that surprising that my Republican friends are
pushing through legislation that prioritizes corporate profit over
health and safety of the American people. Whether it is denying access
to women's health care or rolling back environmental protections,
Republicans are making it clear where their allegiances lie. For a
party that prides itself on being anti-red tape, the SCRUB Act
strangely duplicates existing requirements to conduct retrospective
reviews of rules, rules on top of rules on top of rules. Our regulatory
system should work for all American families and encourage companies to
run safe, forward-thinking businesses. This legislation would move us
in the opposite direction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy coming down here. I love being a part of
debating and coming here to the floor. My friend from Florida and I do
that quite regularly in the Committee on Rules, and it is a good thing.
He has brought up a lot of bills over the last month. He listed out a
list of horribles that was all discussed on this floor. I would
encourage everyone to go back and look at the other side, as Paul
Harvey used to say, and the rest of the story. So for all the list of
horribles, Mr. Speaker, we also need to balance on the votes that were
cast on this floor and the debate had on this floor was not a one-sided
affair. It was two, and the applicants were going.
The other thing that just struck me, Mr. Speaker, was this,
especially dealing with the CRA, the records. It was interesting to see
that this was a carefully thought-out proposal. It was not a carefully
thought-out proposal. It was a reaction to a 2012 court case, the Volks
case, in which the three D.C. Appellate Court judges, including
Henderson, Brown, and Garland, said: OSHA, you can't do this, you can't
go back and maintain the records and then only be able--what the law
actually says is, punish within 6 months of this.
So this is not long and thought out. It was a way, as was established
in the Volks case, actually the case said: ``We do not believe
Congress''--these were the judges speaking--``expressly established a
statute of limitations only to implicitly encourage the Secretary to
ignore it.''
So this goes back to the heart, Mr. Speaker. If we are wanting to
discuss the face of a Republican majority that is listening to the
Constitution and the American people saying we need relief from some of
these regulatory burdens in which good people--I will never not state
that good people work in these agencies, but when you give good people
a job, and you tell them to go do something and to sit in their
cubicles or sit in their offices and say how can I come up with more
regulatory, they are going to do it. Americans are the best workers in
the world. They are going to use their talents.
The problem is when you put them in a position in which many times
their talents do not equal what is happening in the real world. Mr.
Speaker, you have seen that in your State. I have seen that in my
State. In fact, we have seen it in Florida, as well, and other States.
It is simply bringing us back to commonsense reasoning in this in
saying why, when you cannot by law punish this, why are you keeping it?
The court actually also made an interesting statement as well in
this, and in one of the footnotes it said: ``That OSHA did not cite
Volks for a failure to retain injury records when that is the only
conduct for which the statute of limitations would not have clearly
expired suggests that OSHA had, at some point, correctly understood
that an unmade record cannot be said to have not been retained and that
an employer's obligations with respect to making and keeping records
are distinct.''
The idea that you are somehow going to harm recordkeeping here--which
is a separate violation, by the way, which has nothing to do with the
keeping of the records 5 years, let's at least get this process
straight here. If you do not, as an employer, record workplace injuries
and record these incidents, you are in an issue there. You are
violating the law there. So let's look at this.
[[Page H1366]]
OSHA has a great place. It should be the teaching arm. It should be the
encouraging arm for every employer to look to for best practices and
standards on how to do what I believe every employer here inherently
gets up every morning wanting to do. They do not want to have a
workforce that is hurt, maimed, or put at risk in their jobs every day.
Instead, OSHA has morphed, over time, and this body is partially to
blame. It has morphed into something that, frankly, has left its
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It has become punitive.
It has become a way of not being helpful, but yet actually hurtful in
the marketplace.
So as we look at this, as we talk about this--and I appreciate my
friend from Florida, and he makes a good case for his side--I am going
to simply make the case for our side that when you look at regulatory
burdens that shouldn't be there, when you are looking at it, as we just
talked about, where every regulatory burden does not come down to clean
air and clean water. Every regulatory burden we talk about does not
come down to clean water, clean air, or working on airplanes or
anything else. There are some that just simply are in the way in
business. Like I mentioned earlier in my talk concerning how the
linchpin on a baker's can actually should work. Really, Mr. Speaker?
So in this issue, let's continue to move how we are, let's continue
to put forward commonsense regulations. We can disagree, and that is
why that vote total on that board will show up in just a little while.
But at the end of the day, who is on your side? It is the Republican
majority who says: let's get to work safely, helpful, let's make sure
everybody has the opportunity to continue to do what they intended to
do, but do so in a sense that makes sense and doesn't continue to be
punitive.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the passion of my friend from Georgia. I would suggest
to him that I am amused that he would get in the weeds in a rather
substantial legal opinion. A portion of it he correctly cited, but he
omitted the continuing part of the judge's remarks that said that,
indeed, you could go back and put forth a resolution.
I find it particularly amusing that my friends on the other side,
after not granting that judge a hearing so that he could become a
Supreme Court Justice, now want to say what a great judge he is and
what a great amount of work he does. Shame on everyone who did not give
him an appropriate hearing. But I understand what it is to steal a
Justice of the Supreme Court, and that is what my friends on the
Republican side did. This judge's opinion continued on to say that you
could establish regulations.
Mr. Speaker, up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has
disclosed his tax return information. These returns have provided a
basic level of transparency that has helped to ensure the public's
interest is placed first. The American people deserve the same level of
disclosure from Donald John Trump. If they continue to refuse to
provide it, it is incumbent upon us, as the people's elected
representatives, to hold the executive branch accountable.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring Representative Anna Eshoo's bill which
would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to
release their tax returns.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good
friend and classmate, to discuss our proposal.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), my friend, classmate, and wonderful colleague, for yielding
time to me.
I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills. I
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this
bipartisan bill that I have written, the Presidential Tax Transparency
Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote.
The Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require the President and
all future Presidents and Presidential nominees of the major parties,
Democrats and Republicans, to publicly disclose their tax returns. It
came as a surprise to many Americans, during the 2016 campaign, that
this disclosure was not required by law. Instead, we have had a
tradition of voluntary disclosure among every President of both parties
since the post-Watergate era. Until now, our Presidents have recognized
that those who seek or hold the most powerful office in the world
should be held to the highest standard of transparency.
Donald Trump is the first President to refuse to release his tax
returns since Gerald Ford, a man of the House. I remember when his
remains were brought to the Capitol where he rested in the rotunda but
came by the doors of the House. He was a man of the House and a man of
integrity.
{time} 1245
He along with a host of others, Democrats and Republicans,
voluntarily released their tax returns. But Mr. Trump's 2016 candidate
filing with the Federal Election Commission shows that he has 564
financial positions in companies located both in the United States and
around the world, including relationships with state-affiliated
businesses in several countries.
Why is this important to note? The President had an opportunity to
resolve these potential conflicts of interest by divesting and placing
his business assets into a true blind trust, as other Presidents have
done, Republicans and Democrats. Instead, he chose to turn over control
of his business to his sons in an arrangement that the Director of the
nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics called ``wholly inadequate''
and ``meaningless from a conflict of interest perspective.'' Since he
is taken office, these ethics concerns have been borne out in the form
of his and his campaign's connections to Russia, deeply, deeply
troubling to all of us and to the American people, legitimately so; his
family's potential new business dealings in the Dominican Republic and
Uruguay; and the hiring of a ``director of diplomatic sales'' at his
Washington, D.C., hotel to attract high-priced business among foreign
diplomats. This is deeply unsettling, to say the least.
Simply put, the President's business empire makes him more
susceptible to conflicts of interest than any other President in the
history of our country. Three of the President's nominees have already
withdrawn their names from consideration due to potential financial
conflicts of interest. Only a full release of the President's tax
returns will provide the public with clear information as to his
potential conflicts of interest and his potential entanglements with
foreign governments and foreign businesses.
Last night, here on the floor, the House voted along party lines,
unfortunately, to block an effort to obtain the President's tax returns
under the House's existing authority. Today, we have another chance to
honor the will of the American people and write this important
disclosure tradition into law--into law.
According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 74 percent of
Americans believe the President should release his tax returns--74
percent. The top petition on the White House website has over 1 million
signatures to it, calling on the President to release his tax returns.
I think the voice of the people, the American people, is clear. As
their representatives, they deserve to have us take action on this
because we all want a conflict of interest-free President.
I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so we can hold
an immediate vote on the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As my friend from Florida just said, I think we can sum it up very
easily right here on this discussion. And, no, I did not choose not to
continue the other quotes in the ruling which were, again, pretty
amazing. I will just say
[[Page H1367]]
this. The reason is because I was saving it for now.
They said: Well, you can go ahead and do a new regulation you can
make them keep for 5 years. But as an Old Scripture taught me years
ago: all things may be lawful, but not all things are profitable. You
can do some things, but, in the end, are they really getting at the end
result of what OSHA is supposed to do? Are you protecting employers and
employees? Are you making the workplace safer? And right here, we are
just not seeing that.
I think what is also interesting as we look at this is let's just
have common sense in this. You still cannot punish up to 6 months. The
court actually even said also, as well, as much the same on page 13 of
their opinion.
I think what we have to look at here is, in looking at this, let's
talk about the issues of common sense; let's talk about regulatory
burden that works instead of regulatory burden that does not.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This evening, Donald John Trump will address a joint session of
Congress. I expect we will hear some version of the same message we
have heard throughout the first month of his chaotic administration--
talk of jobs and American workers and protecting our country--but that
is all it has been up to now, just talk. Instead of actually doing any
of those things, Republicans are sowing chaos trying to turn their
absurd campaign speeches into something that resembles policy; and,
frankly, that just will not fly.
Donald John Trump's campaign rhetoric doesn't fit the actual
challenges of governing, and I believe my friends on the other side of
the aisle are starting to come to this realization. If they haven't,
may I urge upon them that the rubber is going to hit the road with the
debt ceiling and with tax reform and with repeal and replace of the
Affordable Care Act. I ask the American public to watch the divisions
on the other side when the rubber hits the road.
Mr. Speaker, with every action they take, reality and facts keep
stopping them in their tracks. The un-American Muslim ban was put in
check by the judicial branch. Their attempts to repeal ObamaCare have
been checked by their own constituents at their own townhalls. The
majority needs to wake up and realize that these are not sound
policies, but reckless chaos.
It is past time for the majority to get serious about the serious
business of governing. And yet, with these measures here today, all we
continue to see are antiworker, antienvironment, and, in the final
analysis, anti-American proposals. The American people want solutions,
not a governing party that just checks the box of unrealistic, chaotic,
and harmful campaign promises.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying
measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As we come to the close of this time of rule debate, I think we have
laid this out. I think, again, it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, what we
determine and what we go forward with in the process.
As we move forward, it is interesting to me--and I would be, too, if
I were in the minority and didn't really have a plan except the one
that has been tearing up the health insurance market, that has been
hurting others. And now as we look to actually make movement on a
replacement and repeal of that, I would say that I would watch for
divisions. I would watch for cracks and the fissures. I would do
whatever I could.
But the truth of the matter is that, over the next month, in this
body, we are going to move forward with what we have said we are going
to do. We are going to be working on those aspects. We are going to be
bringing it to the floor, and the American people can make the judgment
for themselves.
People will continue to discuss. It is healthy in our country to have
that discussion. It is healthy that we move forward. It is also healthy
we examine all of the facts.
This rule today, though, simply deals with common sense. Let's look
at our regulatory burden. Let's look at issues that--again, it is one
thing to look at a rule that is there for protection. Workplace safety
is enhanced by making you record what is going on and making you be
able to then correct what may be a problem in your business. But simply
keeping records for 5 years when you can't be punished but for 6 months
of those is simply putting a burden on business to keep records that
are really at the end of the day not accomplishing your bottom line.
It goes back to what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. I believe that OSHA
is a valuable organization when doing what it is supposed to be doing:
protecting workplace safety, doing things that actually matter, doing
things that actually help. But many times in my businesses that I go
to, they have put in rules over the years that say that we are now in a
continuing violation.
In other words, if one time they come in and they say that an
electrical outlet is not plugged in properly to an extension cord, you
fix that. When they come back 2 or 3 months later and see something on
the other side of the building that deals with electrical, then they
will say, well, it is a continuing violation, not the violation
previous, and they triple the fines.
OSHA now, and the good folks who work there, I believe, truly want to
help. They truly have set out best practices. But they have grown to
the point where we have allowed them to become not the help that they
should be, but are basically and many times a hindrance and a menace to
our businesses, from the farms to the factories, to the coal mines, all
that. It has just gotten out of hand.
So my discussion, Mr. Speaker, is this. How do you get regulatory
burden that actually makes sense?
We are not going to stand here and argue over a rule that makes
sense. I will never sit here and say that we should not record
workplace injuries and let businessowners then be fined if they are
doing something wrong. We will never argue about that.
But when it comes to the point of excessive recordkeeping that, at
the end of the day, does nothing except burden the business, how do you
explain that as helping workplace safety? If my son is in the pool and
can't get to the side and I do nothing, I can have great intentions;
but unless I get in and bring him to the side, then I have actually
done something.
A rule that has no end result to the bottom line of what you are
doing is simply waving and saying, ``Oh, I am doing something,''
instead of getting back to the purpose that OSHA should be about. When
businesses and OSHA cannot work together collaboratively to seek and to
set a process in which businesses are safer and employees are
healthier, then OSHA is failing and they have become punitive in
nature.
Why don't they come in and help businesses? Why don't they come in
and start? And if there is a business that continues the process of
being bad actors in the marketplace, then take them out, fine them, do
what you need to do. But I, myself, believe that most businessowners--
and I was one at one point--that we don't go in every day wanting to
hurt employees. We don't want to do that. We want to have a safe
workplace that presents a good product, that presents a good service,
that presents the activity that continues our economic engine.
Let's quit defending rules that don't work. Let's quit wasting time
defending rules and having our agencies in this city determine that all
they want to do is generate rules because that is their job
description. Let's see the things that actually work. If they want to
be policy experts, then let them run for office. But if you are going
to at least look at it, do it by the law.
Mr. Speaker, these rules before us today provide two very important
bills that take steps to get our economic engine going again. They do,
as we have talked about, look at unnecessary rules. They look at things
that need to be examined.
But we also can't simply pretend existing nonsensical regulations
don't exist, because they are being enforced at the expense of
innovators and job creators across the country, and they are being
enforced without using any common sense.
A case in point, did you know that trains have to have an F painted
on the front of them so that people can tell which end is the front? I
don't know about you, but I believe Americans can tell the front from
the back of a train.
We have got to identify existing business regulations like this that
are outdated and simply don't make sense
[[Page H1368]]
anymore and start taking steps to repeal them. The bills before us
today are a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 150 Offered by Mr. Hastings
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.
305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require
the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and
certain candidates for the office of the President, 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 respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and
Government Reform. 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. 305.
____
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. 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 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________