Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 118 (Friday, July 13, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 118 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6179-H6191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2017

General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 50.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 985 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 50.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 0915

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 50) to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing
Federal mandates, and for other purposes, with Mr. Mast in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act, or UMRA, to prevent the imposition of burdensome and costly
Federal unfunded mandates. Over the course of this Congress, the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee has developed a record that
clearly shows UMRA has fallen short of its original goals.
Last year, the committee sought input on UMRA and received several
hundred responses from Governors, State legislators, and county
officials regarding the impact of Federal laws and regulations.
Too often, State and local governments are confronted with the rotten
choice of raising taxes on their residents or cutting services
residents depend on in order to comply with Federal mandates. Unfunded
federal mandates strain State and local budgets, and subvert the
principles of American federalism.
Federal agencies treat States as servants to their regulatory whims,
rather than as partners to consult before imposing new, burdensome
mandates.
In an April 2017 hearing, a Kentucky county executive testified that
Federal agencies treat their responsibilities under UMRA as an exercise
to ``check a box,'' rather than an opportunity to engage in a
meaningful intergovernmental partnership.
H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, is
designed to solve these problems. It will improve the quality of
regulatory and legislative analysis and close the current loophole
which allows an agency to bypass UMRA analysis by not issuing a notice
of proposed rulemaking.
According to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, 35
percent of major rules are issued without a notice of proposed
rulemaking. That means more than one-third of the regulations with the
greatest impact on the economy are excluded from UMRA's cost-benefit
and other analyses.
H.R. 50 also expands the definition of direct costs to ensure
economic analysis considers foregone profits, costs passed on to
consumers, and behavioral changes.
Requiring Federal regulatory agencies and the Congressional Budget
Office to include all anticipated costs in cost estimates will help
ensure that analyses are complete and provide an accurate description
of the full effects of regulations and legislation.
H.R. 50 enhances transparency, accountability, and communication
between the Federal Government and State, local, Tribal, or private
sector partners. It requires Federal agencies to engage in a more
thorough regulatory process by codifying key provisions of President
Clinton's Executive Order 12866. These principles were reaffirmed by
President Obama in Executive Order 13563 and are consistent with
President Trump's executive orders on regulatory reform.
Under UMRA, agencies are required to consult with State, local, and
Tribal governments when developing significant regulatory mandates.
H.R. 50 extends this requirement to the private sector, which is
similarly burdened by unfunded Federal regulatory mandates.
The bill also requires independent agencies like the Consumer Product
Safety Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal
Communications Commission to comply with UMRA.
Finally, H.R. 50 extends judicial review to help ensure agencies
carefully consider the least costly and least burdensome regulatory
alternative, giving courts the authority to stay regulations for
noncompliance with UMRA. These changes are critical to achieving what
Congress set out to do when UMRA was passed in 1995.
Requiring greater transparency and improving analysis prior to
imposing Federal mandates is not a partisan goal. State and local
governments headed by Republicans and Democrats

[[Page H6180]]

alike are affected by unfunded Federal mandates.
Businesses throughout the country have invested time and resources to
comply with Federal mandates. With such a sweeping impact, any decision
to impose a Federal mandate should, at a minimum, be transparent and
based on the most comprehensive and accurate information available.
It is for this reason that our bill is supported by a vast coalition
of nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations made up of United States State
and local government officials.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from these coalitions,
which includes the United States Conference of Mayors, the National
League of Cities, the International City/County Management Association,
the National Association of Counties, the Council of State Governments,
the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National
Governors Association.

NFIB,

Washington, DC, March 14, 2018.
Hon. Virginia Foxx,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Foxx: On behalf of the National
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's
leading small business advocacy organization, I am writing in
support of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2017. This legislation makes critical
improvements to the regulatory review process.
In a recent NFIB National Small Business Poll, almost half
of small businesses surveyed viewed regulation as a ``very
serious'' (25 percent) or ``somewhat serious'' (24 percent)
problem. Additionally, 51 percent of small business owners
reported an increase in the number of regulations impacting
their business over the previous three years.
H.R. 50 requires that federal agencies abide by explicit
criteria when assessing potential impacts of regulatory
actions, and further stipulates that the cumulative impacts
of the regulatory burden be considered. The legislation
enhances Congressional authority in regulatory oversight,
requiring agencies to review existing regulations upon the
request of a committee chair or ranking member. In addition,
the legislation transfers authority under the current
unfunded mandates law from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), whose staff is better equipped to handle such
work.
Thank you for leading on this important legislation. We
look forward to working with you on reforming the regulatory
process as the 115th Congress moves forward.
Sincerely,
Juanita D. Duggan,
President & CEO, NFIB.
____

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 14, 2018.
Hon. Trey Gowdy,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Elijah Cummings,
Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member Cummings: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce supports H.R. 50, the ``Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act of 2017.''
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
agencies to undertake a qualitative and quantitative
assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the
federal mandate before promulgating a final rule. For rules
costing over $100 million, UMRA requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and select the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule. Alternatively, the head of the agency
must publish with the final rule an explanation of why the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome method
of achieving the rule's objectives was not chosen.
However, agencies routinely engineer the regulatory process
to avoid UMRA's requirements. The Government Accountability
Office has found that many statutes and final rules
containing significant unfunded mandates were enacted or
published without being identified as federal mandates at or
above UMRA's thresholds. Worst of all, there is no mechanism
to obtain meaningful judicial review for UMRA violations, so
agencies can easily get away with skirting the law's
requirements.
H.R. 50 would fix many of these problems. It would close
loopholes that agencies use to circumvent UMRA and provide
for enhanced stakeholder participation, meaningful UMRA
oversight, and judicial review. The bill would also enhance
the ability of Congress to identify unfunded mandates in
legislation it considers. The Chamber urges you to vote in
favor of this bipartisan legislation, and to report it to the
full House as expeditiously as practicable.
Sincerely,
Neil L. Bradley.
____

March 13, 2018.
Re The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act
(H.R. 50/S. 1523).

Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Homeland, Security and
Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC.
Hon. Trey Gowdy,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Washington, DC.
Hon. Claire McCaskill,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC.
Hon. Elijah Cummings,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Johnson and McCaskill and Representatives
Gowdy and Cummings: On behalf of the Big 7, a coalition of
national organizations representing state and local
officials, we applaud your efforts to make improvements to
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995. Monitoring
federal regulations and planning for unfunded mandates
continues to be one of the most pressing issues for state and
local leaders. In particular, we support strengthening the
required analysis of pending legislation and your call for a
strong regulatory look-back process. This additional
information is critical for improving both the legislative
and regulatory processes.
As you know, UMRA was designed to limit the imposition of
unfunded federal mandates on state, local, and tribal
governments by requiring the Congressional Budget Office and
regulatory agencies to provide a qualitative and quantitative
assessment of the anticipated costs of legislation and
certain regulations, respectively. As UMRA begins its third
decade, the goal of curbing ``the practice of imposing
unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments'' is
even more important.
A past report by the White House Office of Management and
Budget stated federal regulations and unfunded mandates cost
states, cities and the general public between $44 and $62
billion each year. With many states and local governments
facing revenue restrictions and growing local financial
burdens, the federal government should avoid imposing any new
unfunded mandates. Moreover, federal regulatory agencies
should work more closely with state and local governments and
other stakeholders during the rule-making process to gather
input and identify practical solutions.
We commend you for your leadership in advocating the
enactment of this legislation, and we look forward to working
with you and your staff to ensure its passage.
Sincerely,
David Adkins,
CEO and Executive Director, The Council of State
Governments.
Matthew D. Chase,
Executive Director, National Association of Counites.
Scott Pattison,
Executive Director, National Governors Association.
Clarence Anthony,
CEO and Executive Director, National League of Cities.
Marc Ott,
Executive Director, International City/County Management
Association.
William T. Pound,
Executive Director, National Conference of State
Legislatures.
Tom Cochran,
CEO and Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 50 ensures the commonsense goals
Congress intended when enacting UMRA in 1995 are in fact realized and
improved upon. I thank the bipartisan group of Members who cosponsored
and support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 50, and I
reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2018.
Hon. Steve Womack,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 15, 2018, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported H.R. 50, the
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017,
with an amendment, by recorded vote. The bill was referred
primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, with additional referrals to the Committees on
Budget, Rules, and the Judiciary.

[[Page H6181]]

I ask you allow the Committee on the Budget to be
discharged from further consideration of the bill to expedite
floor consideration. This discharge in no way affects your
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will
not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition,
should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support
your request to have the Committee on the Budget represented
on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to
include this letter and any response in the bill report filed
by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as well
as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to
memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, June 26, 2018.
Hon. Trey Gowdy,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gowdy: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency
Act of 2017.
The bill contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. In order to
expedite House consideration of H.R. 50, the Committee on the
Budget will forgo action on the bill. This is being done with
the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the
Committee with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on
this or similar legislation. I also ask that the Committee on
the Budget be appropriately consulted and involved as this
bill or similar legislation moves forward so that the
Committee may address any remaining issues that fall within
its jurisdiction. The Committee on the Budget also reserves
the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of
conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or
similar legislation. I also request that you include this
letter and your response as part of your committee's report
on H.R. 50 and in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look
forward to working with you as this bill moves through the
Congress.
Sincerely,
Steve Womack,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2018.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 15, 2018, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported H.R. 50, the
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017,
with an amendment, by recorded vote. The bill was referred
primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, with additional referrals to the Committees on
Budget, Rules, and the Judiciary.
I ask you allow the Committee on Rules to be discharged
from further consideration of the bill to expedite floor
consideration. This discharge in no way affects your
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will
not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition,
should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support
your request to have the Committee on Rules represented on
the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to
include this letter and any response in the bill report filed
by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as well
as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to
memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Rules,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2018.
Hon. Trey Gowdy
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gowdy: Thank you for your letter on H.R. 50,
the Unfunded Mandate and Information Technology Act of 2017,
which your Committee ordered reported on March 15, 2018.
Because of your willingness to consult with my committee
regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill
by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive
its jurisdiction over H.R. 50. In addition, the Committee on
Rules reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any
request by the Committee on Rules for conferees on H.R. 50 or
related legislation.
I also request that you include this letter and your
response as part of your Committee's report on the bill and
in the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, June 28, 2018.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of
2017. As you know, on March 15, 2018, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported the bill
with an amendment, by recorded vote. The bill was referred
primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, with additional referrals to the Committees on
Budget, Rules, and the Judiciary.
I thank you for allowing the Committee on the Judiciary to
be discharged from further consideration of the bill to
expedite floor consideration. This discharge in no way
affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future
referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee
on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee.
I would be pleased to include this letter and any response
in the bill report filed by the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, as well as in the Congressional Record
during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.
Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 28, 2018.
Hon. Trey Gowdy,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gowdy: I write with respect to H.R. 50, the
``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.'' As a
result of your having consulted with us on provisions within
H.R. 50 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary, I forego any further
consideration of this bill so that it may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 50 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation and that our
committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as
this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may
address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our
committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an
appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate
conference involving this or similar legislation and asks
that you support any such request.
I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 50 and would ask that
a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included
in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of
H.R. 50.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 50, the
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.
We have seen this bill before. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad
idea now.
Proponents of this bill, as we have just heard, may argue that
regulations are burdensome and costly--and sometimes they are--but, in
fact, the benefits of agency regulations far outweigh the costs.
The most recent draft report of the Trump administration's own Office
of Management and Budget on the benefits and costs of regulations found
that the estimated annual benefits of rules between 2006 and 2016,
which covers nearly all of the regulations during the previous
administration, were between $219 billion and $695 billion. Those are
the benefits, the value of benefits.
By contrast, it said that the cost of those same rules were estimated
at between somewhere around $59 billion and $88 billion. The benefits
far outweigh the cost to the American public.
This bill will impose numerous requirements that will slow down the
regulatory process and give regulated industry an unfair advantage over
public health organizations, doctors, scientists, and ordinary
Americans when new rules are made.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was important in helping to strike a
balance between the need for Federal regulations and the burden those
regulations placed on State and local governments. I know that. I was
the head

[[Page H6182]]

of a very large local government. Congress should endeavor to strike,
however, a similar balance with mandates on the private sector, without
putting our fingers on the scale for the very industries that need
regulations, as this bill does.
Under this bill, agencies would be required to consult with impacted
entities in the private sector on a proposed rule before the rule is
even made available to the public, giving a very unfair advantage to
the industries to be regulated. Agencies should consult with industry
on proposed rules, of course. Regulated corporations, however, should
never been given an explicit and unfair preference over other
stakeholders, particularly the American families and consumers these
rules are designed to protect.
Drug manufacturers, for example, should not get to influence an
opioid safety regulation before public health experts. The energy
industry should not get to weigh in on a regulation before those
citizens whose air and water quality would be affected are heard from.
This bill would also significantly expand in almost a sweeping way
judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
UMRA currently prohibits a court from delaying or invalidating a rule
based on an agency's compliance with UMRA. This bill would eliminate
that restriction.
This bill would also allow judges to second-guess agency experts by
evaluating the adequacy of agency analyses, including cost-benefit
estimates, giving broad new power to the judiciary to get into the
rulemaking process and, in some cases, perhaps, to substitute
themselves for regulatory agencies. This is something I don't believe
we want to see.
The bill would also require an agency to conduct a retrospective
cost-benefit analysis of any existing rule if requested by the chairman
or ranking member of the committee. This provision would require
agencies to conduct analyses on potentially thousands of rules,
diverting unnecessary time and attention away from fulfilling their
missions. That is designed, basically, to preclude new rulemaking from
happening at all.
H.R. 50 would also repeal the exemption that is currently in UMRA for
independent agencies. As a result, the independence of agencies like
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission could be compromised because the Office of Management and
Budget would now have a role in shaping rules those agencies issue.
The bottom line is that regulation can make our air cleaner to
breathe, our water safer to drink--by the way, we are reminded of that
right now here in Washington, D.C., where we have a water boil
advisory--the products we use safer, and provide protections that are
critical for a healthy economy. H.R. 50 would impose new roadblocks
that would make it harder to provide those protections for the public
we serve.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have often heard that the most dangerous words or
the most dangerous phrase in the English language is, ``We are from the
Federal Government, and we are here to help.'' I agree with that.
Everywhere I go in my district, I hear from people, It isn't the laws
that we pass, it's the regulations that implement those laws that are
the biggest problems.
Unfortunately, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
believe that government bureaucrats are the smartest people in the
world. In fact, they are smarter than the majority of the American
people who make this country great.
We absolutely do not want to do away with all rules and regulations.
We want safe food. We want safe drinking water. We want all those
things that help make this country great, but we want to bring some
common sense and some transparency to the regulatory process. That is
what H.R. 50 does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership
on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 50, the Unfunded
Mandates Information and Transparency Act.
One of the laws of physics states: For every action in nature, there
is an equal and opposite reaction. The same thing happens in our
economy.

{time} 0930

Well, I can confidently say that, for every action made in
Washington, D.C.'s bloated bureaucracy, there is going to be an
unfunded mandate for private businesses and State, local, and Tribal
businesses to grapple with.
In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to help
stop the burden of these costly Federal unfunded mandates. However,
over the last 23 years, many unfunded mandates have slipped through the
cracks due to loopholes or failed analyses, costing taxpayers more of
their hard-earned money.
As a small-business owner for more than 40 years, I am a strong
advocate for scrutinizing every tax dollar spent and holding agencies
accountable.
As Dr. Foxx mentioned of her travels in her district and my travels
in my district, for the last 500 days since this administration and
this President took office, it is like somebody flipped on the light
switch. More jobs are being created; wages are rising; and the economy
is growing.
Jobs are being created. There are more jobs available today than
there are people seeking jobs.
H.R. 50 does this. It closes loopholes in the current law,
strengthens analysis requirements to identify harmful Federal mandates,
and requires detailed assessments of authorized funding levels.
Mr. Chair, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting
H.R. 50 today.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, before I recognize Mr. Cummings, the
distinguished ranking member of our committee, I do want to say, it is
the same old thing: Oh, this is just commonsense. Of course we favor
sensible regulation that protects our air and water.
Really. The same crowd that says that is witnessing the dismantlement
of regulations and, frankly, the defenestration of the regulatory
agencies charged with that mission, like the EPA. The late, lamented
Administrator of the EPA has set about on a wrecking ball mission at
EPA, and I don't hear my Republican friends speaking up, decrying that,
and defending those regulations to protect the public.
This is a pig in a poke. My colleagues should not support it.
Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the
vice ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
for yielding time and for doing such a phenomenal job on our committee.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 50, the Unfunded
Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This legislation would
obstruct the regulatory process with new requirements that would make
it more difficult to promulgate regulations that protect the health and
safety of Americans.
This bill also would give regulated companies the ability to weigh in
on rules before other stakeholders. That is simply not right.
Under this bill, gun manufacturers could influence a gun safety rule
before child safety experts.
Under this bill, banks could shape rules related to obtaining lines
of credit before consumer advocates.
Under this bill, a coal company could weigh in on a clean air rule
before doctors, scientists, and other public health experts.
This is a gross distortion of how this process should work, and it
would put the interests of polluters and other corporate offenders
ahead of the American people. I simply say that we are better than
that.
This bill also must be viewed in the context of the broader assault
on regulations underway by President Trump and his allies in Congress.
Using the Congressional Review Act, Republicans in Congress have
repealed 16 health, safety, environmental, and consumer protection
rules.

[[Page H6183]]

They repealed a rule that prevented individuals with severe mental
illnesses from gaining access to guns. Give me a break.
They repealed the stream protection rule, which required monitoring
of streams and groundwater for toxic contaminants dumped by coal mining
companies. Yes, they did that, too.
They repealed the fair pay and safe workplaces rule, which required
that American tax dollars be spent only on companies that comply with
the workplace health, safety, and civil rights laws by which all
private businesses must abide.
The bill before us today is yet another attack on regulations, one
that Republicans have passed many times before but have never been able
to enact.
This bill would amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which was
enacted as part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Even in the
context of the extreme agenda of the Contract with America, Congress
included several limitations in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This
bill would repeal those limitations.
This bill also would put independent agencies in jeopardy of
political interference. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently
exempts independent agencies from its reporting requirements. This bill
would remove that exemption.
That means independent regulatory agencies like the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission would
have to submit their rules to the Office of Management and Budget for
review, which could undermine their independence.
Section 12 of the bill would require an agency to perform a
retrospective review, including an additional cost-benefit analysis of
any existing rule, if requested by the chairman or ranking member of a
committee. The Congressional Research Service found that there is a
tenable argument that section 12 is unconstitutional.
CRS said: ``It could be argued that imbuing certain Members with the
authority to demand that an agency prepare a report under section 12 is
an action of sufficient legislative character and effect as to trigger
the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I.''
These flaws are reason enough to oppose this bill, but the most
important reason is that we rely on agency rulemaking to protect our
children, protect our workers, and protect our economy.

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 good
government, labor, scientific, faith, health, and community
organizations, sent a letter to Congress strongly opposing this bill.
Here is just a portion of what the letter said: ``The costs of
deregulation should be obvious by now. The Wall Street economic
collapse, various food and product safety recalls, and numerous
environmental disasters demonstrate the need for a regulatory system
that protects the public, not corporate interests.''
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that independent agencies
need oversight as much as any other agencies. They already submit
regulatory products to the Office of Management and Budget and the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, including
information collection requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Administrative Conference of the United States has recommended
greater oversight of independent agencies for decades. The American Bar
Association did the same in 1990 and reaffirmed the need in 2016
saying: ``We strongly urge you to bring the independent regulatory
commissions within the requirements for cost-benefit analysis and
retrospective review of rules currently reflected in Executive Order
12866 and Executive Order 13563.''
I want to point out that both of these executive orders were
promulgated by Democrat Presidents.
In 2011, Sally Katzen, OIRA Administrator under the Clinton
administration, urged expanded oversight of independent agencies. She
wrote: ``Our concern is that independent agencies are not typically
engaged in the analysis that has come to be expected as a form of
governmental best practices for regulatory agencies.''
This bill simply requires independent agencies to undertake the same
cost-benefit analysis and reporting requirements as other regulatory
agencies. There is no threat to their independence.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me, and I thank our ranking member, again, for trying to work together.
Again, I respectfully support H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act of 2017. This is an issue that I have
been working on since the 1990s in the State legislature. In fact, I
was the author of house bill 66 when the Democrats controlled the
Governorship, the House, the Senate, and the State legislature. I was
able to pass the first unfunded mandates bill in the State of Texas.
This particular issue in Congress started in 1995 under the Clinton
administration. Again, with a Republican Congress working together, the
Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995.
This legislation was designed to prevent the Federal Government from
imposing unfunded mandates on States and local governments, or private
businesses, without policymakers or the public knowing the cost of such
policies.
This legislation ensured public awareness of the financial burden of
Federal mandates on small-business owners and on State and local
governments. However, this unfunded mandates bill has not been amended
since 1995, and some of those changes are necessary to preserve and
improve the act's initial purpose.
This bill closes some of the loopholes by removing independent agency
reporting exemptions, setting forth detailed assessment criteria, and
allowing judicial review of agency assessments.
My district has a number of rural and underserved communities that
need many resources. Imposing unfunded mandates on these kinds of
communities makes life even more difficult for hardworking Americans to
access basic needs, such as water infrastructure, sanitary water, and
adequate living conditions.
Additionally, this bill requires that Federal agencies consult with
the private sector when issuing regulations. What is wrong with
consultation? Again, it allows recourse for companies, if agencies do
not comply.
As a former small-business owner, I know the challenges of opening a
business; the challenges of keeping a business open, including finding
the resources and funds to get started; and how to keep a business
running, especially on a tight budget.
Higher costs for these entrepreneurs make it more difficult for them
to start and maintain a business, which means blunted economic growth
for communities that need it the most, like the ones I represent in
south Texas.
This bill restores and provides a framework to provide clarity to
small business and local governments, and allows workers and
entrepreneurs to freely pursue their dreams.
The bottom line is this: This bill will create more certainty for our
Nation's businesses, including the small-business owners and the
entrepreneurs who invest in the future, and allow more Americans to
achieve the dream of business ownership.
I encourage my colleagues from both parties to support it.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional
30 seconds.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Foxx for introducing this
legislation and encourage both sides of the aisle to support it.
I understand this is a process. Hopefully, as we go along, after this
bill passes, we will work this out in the Senate.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My friend from Texas is right. This will certainly provide a lot more
clarity for private enterprise. I am not sure it is the kind of clarity
we want, because they are going to get their nose into the business of
rulemaking to serve their interests.

[[Page H6184]]

{time} 0945

There are rules that could not have been enacted if H.R. 50 had been
law. For example, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11
crew members and set off the worst oil spill in American history, the
Department of the Interior finalized a rule in 2016 to tighten controls
in blowout preventers and calling for rig operators to have third
parties certify that the safety devices worked under extreme
conditions. That rule would have been precluded because of the
provisions of this bill.
The sanitary transportation of human and animal food, this rule
establishes requirements for parties engaged in the transportation of
food, including food for animals, to use sanitary transportation
practices. That would have been precluded.
The corporate average fuel economy standards to regulate miles-per-
gallon number of light-duty vehicles such as sedans, minivans, and any
vehicle that weighs less than 10,000 pounds would have been precluded.
The long-term care facilities arbitration agreements ban nursing
homes and assisted living facilities from forcing patients and their
families into private arbitration to resolve disputes. We protected the
interests of consumers and their families at a time of need. That rule
would have been precluded, too.
So that may be the reason why the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards,
150 organizations, have come together to oppose this bill. It is not in
the public interest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. It gives me great pride to recognize my dear friend.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague from Virginia for
yielding as well as for his leadership on the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to once again strongly oppose H.R. 50. I
consider it a misguided bill that will cost American consumers,
potentially, millions more in tax dollars, while making it easier for
bad actors and certain industries to continue their abusive practices
as they attempt to stonewall appropriate regulation.
Make no mistake: H.R. 50 is a frontal assault on the Nation's health,
safety, and environmental protections, and it would erect new barriers
to give selected industries a built-in advantage to evade or eliminate
vital rules that protect the American people.
For instance, this bill would require agencies to consult with
private sector entities ``as early as possible, before issuance of a
notice of proposed rulemaking, continue through the final rule stage,
and be integrated explicitly into the rulemaking process.''
Now, I agree that Federal agencies should consult with regulated
industries regarding proposed rules, but they should not receive an
insider, prewired advantage in the regulating and rulemaking process
over other stakeholders.
H.R. 50 would also expand judicial review under UMRA and would allow
a court to review the inadequacy or failure of an agency to prepare a
written statement under UMRA. UMRA currently prohibits courts from
using the law to stay, invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule.
H.R. 50 would eliminate this prohibition.
I thought the majority strongly opposed judicial activism, but
perhaps that only applies to protecting the President.
We don't have to choose between protecting the health, welfare, and
safety of Americans and promoting economic growth, job creation, and
innovation. We can do both. H.R. 50 advances neither of these worthy
goals, and that is why I urge my colleagues to reject this deeply
flawed act that will stack the deck against the American consumer.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a distinguished member of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It gives me great pleasure
to recognize my distinguished colleague.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from
Virginia for yielding to me and for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 50, the misleadingly
named Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which passed
out of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a strictly
partisan vote.
This dangerous bill is an attempt to weaken consumer protections,
give private industry an unfair advantage, and erect unnecessary
barriers to the regulatory process. Ultimately, this bill is designed
to prioritize the interests of private businesses over the interests of
the consumers these rules are designed to protect.
H.R. 50 also slows the regulatory process by using litigation today
to delay the approval of rules. The existing Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 prohibits courts from using the law to stay, enjoin,
invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule. H.R. 50 would
fundamentally change that law by eliminating this prohibition, giving
regulated businesses the ability to abuse a gratuitously expanded
judicial review and tie up rules that would otherwise protect real
people in courts for years.
While it has been very popular in this Congress to attack regulations
as uniformly bad, the reality is that many of these rules are crucial
to protecting our air and water, preventing dangerous financial
practices, and ensuring the safety of food and drugs--to put it more
simply, to protect Americans from corporations whose only motivation is
to maximize their profit. Enacting this legislation would put these
vital rules at risk.
H.R. 50 is a very harmful bill. I want to urge all of my colleagues
to vote against it on the House floor today.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and allow
the gentleman from Virginia to close.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from North Carolina. I appreciate her
fervor, and I know she is sincere in her convictions with respect to
this legislation and to the underlying issues.
As someone who came from local government, coming here to Congress,
running one of the biggest local governments in the United States, I
certainly am sympathetic to the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, and I supported many of those provisions.
This goes too far. This isn't just an UMRA improvement. This is
gutting, wholesale, the regulatory process that provides enormous
benefits, and we know that from the OMB itself in terms of the benefits
versus the cost of rulemaking to protect the public.
Where we can make improvements, great, but gutting it, giving the
regulated industries an inside opportunity to shape or block those
regulations before the public ever even sees them, expanding, in a
great way, the role of the judiciary to second-guess and subvert the
role of rulemaking agencies in the executive branch, I think, does
raise constitutional issues, as Mr. Cummings said, that sooner or later
will have to be addressed.
So I think this is a very flawed piece of legislation, despite the
good intentions of my friend from North Carolina. I urge all of my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on something that is simple, neat, but wrong,
as H.L. Mencken once said.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard time and again of the burdens the Federal
Government imposes on State, local, and Tribal governments. We have
also heard from businesses throughout the country, both large and
small, that have to forego investments in employees and infrastructure
in order to comply with these mandates.
Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 to require
the Federal Government to think twice before imposing unfunded
mandates. And let me say, that bill passed, I believe, with unanimous
support from both the House and the Senate. If not unanimous, it was
overwhelming, over 400 votes in the House and, I believe, 98 votes in
the Senate.
Of course, in the 23 years since passage, the bureaucrats in the
Federal

[[Page H6185]]

Government have found ways around many of those requirements. As I
pointed out in my opening remarks, the GAO has reported that 35
percent, more than one-third of major rules, are issued without a
notice of proposed rulemaking so that the public has no idea what is
coming out in the rulemaking in advance. It is time to make sure UMRA
works as Congress intended.
Again, I am fascinated sometimes by my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle who don't want to take responsibility for our actions and
want to give over the running of the entire government to the executive
branch. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I am not sure why some run
for office if they don't want to take on their responsibilities.
Legislative and regulatory decisions should be made in consideration
of all of the available information, not just part of it. The
government should consider every option before imposing unnecessary
burdens on the States, localities, and even private enterprise.
H.R. 50 closes UMRA's loopholes and enhances transparency,
accountability, and communication between the Federal Government and
State, local, Tribal, and private sector partners.
We do not do away with all rulemaking. We do not want to make food,
water, housing, all those things that are regulated for the good of the
American people, we don't want to do away with those. We simply want to
have more transparency and understand the cost of the regulations.
H.R. 50 codifies bipartisan regulatory principles, enhances required
analysis, adds independent agencies to the cost-benefit analysis
requirements, extends judicial review to hold agencies accountable, and
improves stakeholder consultation.
I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Johnson of Louisiana). All time for general
debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment recommended by the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 50

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is--
(1) to improve the quality of the deliberations of Congress
with respect to proposed Federal mandates by--
(A) providing Congress and the public with more complete
information about the effects of such mandates; and
(B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after
focused deliberation on their effects; and
(2) to enhance the ability of Congress and the public to
identify Federal mandates that may impose undue harm on
consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, private
property owners, and State, local, and tribal governments.

SEC. 3. PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE STUDIES ON
POLICIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF
GRANT AID.

Section 202(g) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 602(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Additional studies.--At the request of any Chairman
or ranking member of the minority of a Committee of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director shall
conduct an assessment comparing the authorized level of
funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of
carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal assistance
being imposed on State, local, or tribal governments
participating in the Federal assistance program concerned or,
in the case of a bill or joint resolution that authorizes
such sums as are necessary, an assessment of an estimated
level of funding compared to such costs.''.

SEC. 4. CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT COSTS TO REFLECT
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRACTICE.

Section 421(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``incur or''
before ``be required''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``to spend''
the following: ``or could forgo in profits, including costs
passed on to consumers or other entities taking into account,
to the extent practicable, behavioral changes,''.

SEC. 5. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO
INCLUDE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY INDEPENDENT
REGULATORY AGENCIES.

Paragraph (1) of section 421 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658) is amended by striking ``, but
does not include independent regulatory agencies'' and
inserting ``, except it does not include the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Open
Market Committee, or the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau''.

SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO REPLACE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WITH OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY
AFFAIRS.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4;
2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 103(c) (2 U.S.C. 1511(c))--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Office of
Management and Budget'' and inserting ``Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs''; and
(B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and
Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs'';
(2) in section 205(c) (2 U.S.C. 1535(c))--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``OMB''; and
(B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and
Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs''; and
(3) in section 206 (2 U.S.C. 1536), by striking ``Director
of the Office of Management and Budget'' and inserting
``Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs''.

SEC. 7. APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE POINT OF ORDER TO PRIVATE SECTOR
MANDATES.

Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(2) by inserting ``or 424(b)(1)'' after ``section
424(a)(1)''.

SEC. 8. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.

Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.

``(a) In General.--Each agency shall, unless otherwise
expressly prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector (other than to the extent that such
regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set
forth in law) in accordance with the following principles:
``(1) Each agency shall identify the problem that it
intends to address (including, if applicable, the failures of
private markets or public institutions that warrant new
agency action) as well as assess the significance of that
problem.
``(2) Each agency shall examine whether existing
regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed to,
the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and
whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified
to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively.
``(3) Each agency shall identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such
as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information
upon which choices can be made by the public.
``(4) If an agency determines that a regulation is the best
available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it
shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective
manner to achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, each
agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency,
predictability, the costs of enforcement and compliance (to
the government, regulated entities, and the public),
flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity.
``(5) Each agency shall assess both the costs and the
benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that
some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or
adopt a regulation, unless expressly prohibited by law, only
upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
``(6) Each agency shall base its decisions on the best
reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and
other information concerning the need for, and consequences
of, the intended regulation.
``(7) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative
forms of regulation and shall, to the extent feasible,
specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt.
``(8) Each agency shall avoid regulations that are
inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other
regulations or those of other Federal agencies.
``(9) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to minimize
the costs of the cumulative impact of regulations.
``(10) Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple
and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the
potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such
uncertainty.

[[Page H6186]]

``(b) Regulatory Action Defined.--In this section, the term
`regulatory action' means any substantive action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking
and notices of proposed rulemaking.''.

SEC. 9. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY
SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by
law, before promulgating any general notice of proposed
rulemaking or any final rule, or within six months after
promulgating any final rule that was not preceded by a
general notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed
rulemaking or final rule includes a Federal mandate that may
result in an annual effect on State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, in the aggregate of
$100,000,000 or more in any 1 year, the agency shall prepare
a written statement containing the following:
``(1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking or final
rule, together with a reasonably detailed description of the
need for the proposed rulemaking or final rule and an
explanation of how the proposed rulemaking or final rule will
meet that need.
``(2) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of
the proposed rulemaking or final rule, including an
explanation of the manner in which the proposed rulemaking or
final rule is consistent with a statutory requirement and
avoids undue interference with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
``(3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including
the underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the
proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the promotion of
the efficient functioning of the economy and private markets,
the enhancement of health and safety, the protection of the
natural environment, and the elimination or reduction of
discrimination or bias).
``(4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including
the underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the
proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the direct costs
both to the Government in administering the final rule and to
businesses and others in complying with the final rule, and
any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the
economy, private markets (including productivity, employment,
and international competitiveness), health, safety, and the
natural environment).
``(5) Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that
the agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably
feasible, of--
``(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate;
and
``(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal
mandate upon any particular regions of the Nation or
particular State, local, or tribal governments, urban or
rural or other types of communities, or particular segments
of the private sector.
``(6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of the
agency's prior consultation with the private sector and
elected representatives (under section 204) of the affected
State, local, and tribal governments.
``(B) A detailed summary of the comments and concerns that
were presented by the private sector and State, local, or
tribal governments either orally or in writing to the agency.
``(C) A detailed summary of the agency's evaluation of
those comments and concerns.
``(7) A detailed summary of how the agency complied with
each of the regulatory principles described in section 201.
``(8) An assessment of the effects that the proposed
rulemaking or final rule are expected to have on private
property owners, including the use and value of affected
property.''.
(b) Requirement for Detailed Summary.--Subsection (b) of
section 202 of such Act is amended by inserting ``detailed''
before ``summary''.

SEC. 10. ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.

Section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1534) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and private
sector'' before ``input'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``, and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small business),'' after ``on their
behalf)''; and
(B) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and
inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Guidelines.--For appropriate implementation of
subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and
regulations, the following guidelines shall be followed:
``(1) Consultations shall take place as early as possible,
before issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue
through the final rule stage, and be integrated explicitly
into the rulemaking process.
``(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of State,
local, and tribal officials and impacted parties within the
private sector (including small businesses). Geographic,
political, and other factors that may differentiate varying
points of view should be considered.
``(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and costs to assist
with these consultations. The scope of the consultation
should reflect the cost and significance of the Federal
mandate being considered.
``(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) seek out the views of State, local, and tribal
governments, and impacted parties within the private sector
(including small business), on costs, benefits, and risks;
and
``(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods of compliance
and potential flexibilities, and input on whether the Federal
regulation will harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws
in other levels of government.
``(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact of
regulations on the affected entities.
``(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of
comments by relevant parties but may not use those comments
as the sole method of satisfying the guidelines in this
subsection.''.

SEC. 11. NEW AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OFFICE OF
INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.

Section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1538) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
RESPONSIBILITIES.

``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide meaningful
guidance and oversight so that each agency's regulations for
which a written statement is required under section 202 are
consistent with the principles and requirements of this
title, as well as other applicable laws, and do not conflict
with the policies or actions of another agency. If the
Administrator determines that an agency's regulations for
which a written statement is required under section 202 do
not comply with such principles and requirements, are not
consistent with other applicable laws, or conflict with the
policies or actions of another agency, the Administrator
shall identify areas of non-compliance, notify the agency,
and request that the agency comply before the agency
finalizes the regulation concerned.
``(b) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--
The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs annually shall submit to Congress, including the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives, a written report
detailing compliance by each agency with the requirements of
this title that relate to regulations for which a written
statement is required by section 202, including activities
undertaken at the request of the Director to improve
compliance, during the preceding reporting period. The report
shall also contain an appendix detailing compliance by each
agency with section 204.''.

SEC. 12. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4;
2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 209 as section 210; and
(2) by inserting after section 208 the following new
section 209:

``SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.

``(a) Requirement.--At the request of the chairman or
ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of
the House of Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall
conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal
regulation promulgated by an agency.
``(b) Report.--Each agency conducting a retrospective
analysis of existing Federal regulations pursuant to
subsection (a) shall submit to the chairman of the relevant
committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report
containing, with respect to each Federal regulation covered
by the analysis--
``(1) a copy of the Federal regulation;
``(2) the continued need for the Federal regulation;
``(3) the nature of comments or complaints received
concerning the Federal regulation from the public since the
Federal regulation was promulgated;
``(4) the extent to which the Federal regulation overlaps,
duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal regulations, and,
to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental
rules;
``(5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions,
or other factors have changed in the area affected by the
Federal regulation;
``(6) a complete analysis of the retrospective direct costs
and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies
done outside the Federal Government (if any) estimating such
costs or benefits; and
``(7) any litigation history challenging the Federal
regulation.''.

SEC. 13. EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Section 401(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1571(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)--
(A) by striking ``sections 202 and 203(a)(1) and (2)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``sections 201, 202, 203(a)
(1) and (2), and 205 (a) and (b)''; and
(B) by striking ``only'' each place it appears;

[[Page H6187]]

(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``section 202'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
the following: ``section 202, prepare the written plan under
section 203(a) (1) and (2), or comply with section 205 (a)
and (b), a court may compel the agency to prepare such
written statement, prepare such written plan, or comply with
such section.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``written statement or
plan is required'' and all that follows through ``shall not''
and inserting the following: ``written statement under
section 202, a written plan under section 203(a) (1) and (2),
or compliance with sections 201 and 205 (a) and (b) is
required, the inadequacy or failure to prepare such statement
(including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate,
analysis, statement, or description), to prepare such written
plan, or to comply with such section may''.

SEC. 14. REAUTHORIZATION.

Section 109 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1516) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Congressional Budget Office $1,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2018 through 2024 to carry out the provisions of this
title.''.

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in House Report 115-812. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, 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.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Watson Coleman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 115-812.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike section 5.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 985, the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply strikes a
section of H.R. 50 that subjects independent agencies to the reporting
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA.
The Office of Management and Budget, which is charged with
implementing the President's priorities across the executive branch, is
responsible for overseeing the implementation of H.R. 50.

{time} 1000

This bill expands OMB's role by requiring them to guarantee that each
agency complies with the act's requirements, which puts the independent
agencies in jeopardy of political interference.
The independence of regulatory agencies, like the Federal
Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
who are responsible for protecting public health and safety, would be
severely compromised. The aptly named independent agencies are entitled
to operate with more autonomy than Cabinet agencies and without undue
influence from Presidential administrations.
This is particularly troubling considering this administration's
track record on weakening States' rights by gutting Federal public
protections and blocking States from adopting stronger State level
standards and protections.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for her thoughtful
amendment.
This amendment would significantly improve an already bad bill by
exempting the independent agencies, who should not be brought under the
penumbra of this bill at all. It will absolutely cut their independence
and make them subject to the rulemaking and the supervision of the OMB
in a way that Congress never intended. That is why they are independent
agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this thoughtful
amendment, and I thank my good friend from New Jersey for her
leadership on this matter.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a key provision
of H.R. 50, requiring independent agencies to comply with UMRA.
The purpose of H.R. 50 is to require comprehensive analysis before
agencies impose unfunded mandates on State, local, or Tribal
governments and the private sector.
Regulations must be fully analyzed and imposed only after impacted
parties have been consulted. That should be the case whether the
regulations come from a Cabinet department or an independent agency.
From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2016, independent agencies
issued 275 major rules. Those rules imposed significant costs on our
economy and often included mandates on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector, just the same as rules that came
from non-independent agencies.
Because independent agencies are excluded from UMRA, excluded from
regulatory process requirements in Executive Order No. 12866, and
excluded from review by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, few independent agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses.
In FY 2016, independent agencies issued 18 major regulations, but
only a third of those rules included monetized cost analysis and not
one rule included any analysis of monetized benefits.
The cost-benefit analyses required by UMRA are essential for a
transparent and accountable regulatory system, and eliminating section
5 would be inconsistent with the intent of H.R. 50. This bill seeks to
close loopholes, not preserve them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time I
have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Jersey has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill will falsely claim that the
provision in H.R. 50 will close a loophole that will make independent
agencies accountable to the public.
But I want to make it clear that this provision will only give
presidents greater control over independent agencies and will create
needless uncertainty in the decision-making process of independent
regulatory agencies.
It is also unclear how reducing the independence of these agencies
addresses unfunded mandates. Instead, it is clear that the real goal is
simply to undermine their independence. For these reasons, I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment and remove this harmful provision.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the real goal of this bill is to require
transparency on the part of independent agencies and not to have a
nefarious impact on those independent agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Raskin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 115-812.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 14, after line 4, insert the following new paragraph:
``(4) A record of any consultation with any non-Federal
party during the development of regulatory proposals
containing a significant Federal mandate shall be posted on
the website of the agency within five days after the
consultation. Any comments submitted

[[Page H6188]]

by a non-Federal party shall be posted on the website of the
agency within five days after the date of submission to the
agency.
Page 14, line 5, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 14, line 15, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 14, line 17, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 985, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which is
offered in conjunction with the primary sponsor of H.R. 50,
Representative Virginia Foxx, who I know has worked very hard on this
legislation. I am glad that Ms. Foxx has embraced the amendment because
it does improve the legislation.
The amendment would require the website post within 5 days of any
consultations that an agency has with non-Federal parties during the
development of regulatory proposals containing a significant Federal
unfunded mandate, as well as the website posting of any comments
submitted by non-Federal parties on such proposals within 5 days of
their submission.
I am delighted that we have converged around this question of
transparency in the regulatory process. Public rules should serve the
public, so the public should know what the ingredients are, what the
discussions are that are going into the preparation and the development
of public regulations.
This is a consensus amendment, which is all about sunlight and
scrutiny.
The idea of agency interaction with interested parties on Federal
mandates is a good one. In this case, I only wish that the bill
required far broader and more inclusive consultation.
As it stands in the legislation, early consultation is only required
with affected ``parties within the private sector including small
businesses'' and ``State, local, and Tribal governments,'' which are
already covered under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
The bill still operates in a slanted way. It does not require early
consultations with representatives of other affected parties, like
veterans, farmers, law enforcement officers, community associations,
religious groups, and so on.
I have told the sponsor that I think it is a mistake to keep it this
narrow, and I only wish the Rules Committee had, in its wisdom,
accepted my second amendment so we could address that shortcoming. But
having said that, I appreciate the strong incorporation of the language
on transparency and disclosure, and I wish that, at least in the
future, that we can be more flexible about placing all affected
regulatory parties on the same plane.
I thank Representative Foxx for her support on this amendment, and I
ask that all of my colleagues support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Maryland for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is a thoughtful
addition. Certainly, more transparency is a good thing.
But, as Mr. Raskin suggests, it doesn't change the underlying fact
that this is a flawed bill. It doesn't change the fact that it guts
independent agencies. It doesn't change the fact that it broadly
expands the role of the judiciary in an executive branch rulemaking
process. It doesn't change the fact that it basically gives unilateral
authority to the chairman and ranking member here in Congress to block
rules, period. And it doesn't change the fact that it gives the private
sector an unprecedented role in rulemaking a priority in a way that is
absolutely against consumer interests.
I know my friend from Maryland understands that, so I thank him for
his thoughtful amendment.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Connolly for those remarks. I
agree with that. I think there was an opportunity here where we could
have gotten the whole committee together, but the bill does remain way
too narrow in terms of addressing just part of the affected regulatory
community and not the rest of it, and there is no reason to do it like
that.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we have an amendment on transparency in
the process that takes place, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment.
This amendment requires a record of any consultation with a non-
Federal party and requires agencies to post any comments submitted by a
non-Federal party to their website within 5 days.
Transparency is a bipartisan priority and is a key feature of many
regulatory process requirements.
For instance, the Administrative Procedures Act generally requires
Federal agencies to publish their proposed rules in the Federal
Register for all to see and to give the public an opportunity to
comment. Rulemaking dockets and public comments are increasingly
available for public inspection online.
Groups, such as the Administrative Conference of the United States,
have recommended that records of consultations and ex parte
communications be disclosed and made a part of the rulemaking docket.
H.R. 50 seeks to introduce greater transparency in the regulatory
process, and this amendment is consistent with that split.
I thank the gentleman from Maryland for offering the amendment and
for working with me to expand its application and increase
transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 3 will not
be offered.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 115-812.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 19, after line 7, insert the following new section:

SEC. 15. SUNSET OF UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT AND
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT AMENDMENTS IF GDP
GROWTH FAILS TO INCREASE AT AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE
OF 5 PERCENT OR MORE.

If the real gross domestic product of the United States
fails to increase at an average annual rate of 5 percent or
more for the first 4 calendar quarters occurring after the
date of the enactment of this Act, as released by the Bureau
of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce, then the
amendments made by this Act to the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) and the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602 et seq.) are
repealed.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 985, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, clear amendment to the Unfunded
Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This amendment seeks to
establish a performance-based sunset mechanism stipulating that, in the
event that the annual rate of real GDP growth remains below 5 percent
over the first four quarters occurring after the date of enactment,
then the statutory changes made by H.R. 50 are repealed because the
bill will have proved to have been ineffective.
If the promise of deregulation and gutting the protection of the
American people is greater economic growth, then let's test that
theory.
This amendment sets up a real-world measurement and a sunset
mechanism that supporters and opponents can support. It features the
flexibility to ensure an appropriate response to the impact of H.R. 50
on America's economic

[[Page H6189]]

growth over the year following enactment.
If the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, by
lessening the independence of independent regulatory agencies and by
strengthening the influence of the private sector to be regulated in
the Federal rulemaking process, does, in fact, spur economic growth, we
should hold the policy accountable. During the Obama administration--a
time when President Obama's critics believed that overregulation was
inhibiting the economy from growing and stunting recovery after the
Great Recession, quarterly growth contradicted them. Quarterly growth
of real GDP was at least 5 percent once and over 4 percent 11 times.
In fact, in 2014, when Congress last considered, but did not enact,
this bill and the supposed hobnail boot of government was on the neck
of our economy, GDP actually grew at an annual rate of 4.6 percent and
5.2 percent in the second and third quarters, respectively, of that
year.
The provisions of H.R. 50 would make it harder for Federal agencies
to safeguard air and water quality, the safety of food and consumer
products, and the health and welfare of all Americans, all in the name
of spurring economic growth. Therefore, it follows, if it fails to spur
that promised economic growth and achieve an average annual growth of 5
percent over the year following the enactment of the law, then the
statutory changes made by this bill should be repealed because they
failed. Anything less would be a bad deal for the American public.
Finally, I would note that, according to the preliminary estimate of
the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment would not increase
direct spending or reduce revenues, and I strongly urge my colleagues
to adopt it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1015

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would repeal H.R. 50 if GDP
remains below 5 percent over the first four quarters after enactment.
H.R. 50 is not intended to raise the GDP. It is intended to ensure
the Federal Government does not impose costs on State, local, and
Tribal governments and the private sector without consulting those
entities that are impacted by the regulation. The GDP does not reflect
how a given regulatory mandate affects a particular government or
private sector industry.
However, this amendment would tie the GDP to the future of the entire
bill. H.R. 50 gives the private sector an opportunity to give Federal
agencies information about how to craft reasonable and effective
regulation. After all, State, local, and Tribal governments and private
sector entities are often in the best position to anticipate how a
proposed regulation will affect their operations.
H.R. 50 will help to ensure regulations that impose unfunded mandates
are adequately analyzed in order to make these mandates the most
effective and least burdensome they can be.
I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Mooney of West Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Johnson of
Louisiana, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 50) to provide for additional safeguards
with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 985, he reported the bill, as amended by
that resolution, back to the House with a further amendment adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. BEATTY. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Beatty moves to recommit the bill H.R. 50 to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:

Add at the end of the bill the following:

SEC. 15. STOPPING SEXUAL PREDATORS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND
RAPE.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply to, limit, or restrict any Federal agency mandate or
action, the purpose of which is to--
(1) protect students and children from a person who has
been convicted in any court of a sex offense against a minor;
(2) prevent domestic violence by stopping persons from
harassing, stalking, or threatening a spouse, a family
member, an intimate partner, or a child of an intimate
partner;
(3) prevent rape or sexual assault; or
(4) require criminal background checks for school or other
employees through a search of the National Crime Information
Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or the National
Sex Offender Public Website.

Ms. FOXX (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I want to echo all the concerns that my colleagues have
expressed with the underlying bill here today. This bill would add
unnecessary obstacles to inhibit the ability of the Federal Government
to protect the health, the safety, and the security of the American
people.
I understand that Democrats and Republicans have traditionally
disagreed on the values of those protections, even though the public
overwhelmingly supports them, whether it is keeping our air and our
water clean, guarding workers against exploitation, or so many other
things. But I would hope that one area where we can agree on is that
this Congress, this government, should do everything possible to
protect the safety of our children and those most vulnerable without
adding unnecessary burdens like those mandated in this bill.
Let me connect the dots for the public to know. As it stands, Mr.
Speaker, this bill would just add more hoops for Federal agencies to
jump through and, actually, would make them less responsive to
addressing problems like sexual assault and domestic violence.
The amendment contained in this motion would fix this problem by
exempting from the bill's additional requirements any agency action
that is meant to, and I want to be real clear:
One, protect students and children from someone who has been
convicted of a sexual offense against a minor. We have far too many
cases before us.
Two, prevent domestic violence against a family member or an intimate
partner. Mr. Speaker, I have counseled far too many women who have been
abused.
Three, prevent rape or sexual assault.
Four, require criminal backgrounds checks for school or other
employees.
Since the last time this Chamber considered this bill, we have seen a
reckoning in this country when it comes to sexual assault, with the
rise of the Me Too movement, millions of women, or a half million women
right here in Washington, D.C., on our Capitol Grounds marching. This
issue is in the forefront of national discussion, and for good reasons,
Mr. Speaker.
No aspect of our society, including this very Congress, has been
immune.

[[Page H6190]]

As the dialog on this issue continues, we should not hamstring Federal
efforts to address what is so clearly a systemic problem in this
country.
This amendment would also cover the issue of human trafficking. I am
very proud of my bipartisan work that I have done on trafficking, and
some of my most stalwart partners on this issue come from the other
side of the aisle. I would hope that they, too, would recognize that we
need the ability to institute the strongest possible protections.
Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly passed a new
law that has had an immediate impact on stemming online trafficking. As
successful as the law has been, traffickers continue to adapt and find
ways to exploit our children and the most at risk. This bill will make
it harder for Federal agencies to respond to these new realities.
There is no cost-benefit analysis that can properly weigh the
importance of protecting children who have been trafficked, who have
been sexually assaulted or abused. There is no congressionally mandated
report or stakeholder consultation that could reach any conclusion
other than we should do everything possible to prevent domestic
violence.
On behalf of all of those who have been victims of domestic violence
or sexual assault, or for those who we can prevent from becoming
victims, I urge, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues today to support this
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Louisiana). The gentlewoman
from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we, on our side of the aisle, join our
colleague in stating our absolute abhorrence to domestic violence and
sexual assault in this country. None of us want to see any incidents of
sexual assault, domestic violence, or assault on children, obviously.
What we are concerned about, and what this bill can help do, is to
help our local police and law enforcement have better opportunities to
help to fight these terrible, terrible situations. I thank our
colleague for her leadership in working with us on this side of the
aisle and with all of us who have had a bipartisan effort on sex
trafficking and sexual assault.
But, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit. We have been
analyzing, debating, and voting on this bill to update the unfunded
mandates reform for years. When UMRA was enacted 23 years ago, it was
an important step to analyze the burdens of Federal legislation and
regulations on State and local governments. But now it needs an update.
H.R. 50 would close loopholes in UMRA, enhance transparency and
accountability, and increase communication with State and local
governments.
Mr. Speaker, if the State and local governments didn't have to spend
so much money on unnecessary things, perhaps they would be able to do
more on the issues my colleague brought up.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill with a bipartisan amendment
from the committee and a bipartisan amendment from the floor. Let's not
let a bipartisan motion stop a fix to decades-old problems in all our
districts, unfunded mandates.
H.R. 50 is good for State and local governments, the Federal
Government, businesses, and, most importantly, it is good for the
public. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. I
support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on:
Passage of the bill, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180,
nays 219, not voting 29, as follows:

[Roll No. 327]

YEAS--180

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--219

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

[[Page H6191]]

NOT VOTING--29

Barletta
Black
Cheney
Ellison
Garrett
Hanabusa
Harper
Hoyer
Issa
Jones
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
Lofgren
Lowey
Marchant
McEachin
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Perlmutter
Rooney, Thomas J.
Sewell (AL)
Simpson
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
Walz
Waters, Maxine

{time} 1052

Messrs. GROTHMAN, GRAVES of Georgia, WALDEN, DAVIDSON, WALBERG, SMITH
of Nebraska, GOODLATTE, and BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. JAYAPAL, Messrs. KRISHNAMOORTHI, HIGGINS of New York, Ms.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. CICILLINE, RUSH, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms.
PELOSI changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 168, not voting 30, as follows:

[Roll No. 328]

AYES--230

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--168

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--30

Barletta
Black
Cheney
Ellison
Garrett
Hanabusa
Harper
Hoyer
Huizenga
Issa
Jones
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
Lofgren
Lowey
Marchant
McEachin
Moore
Moulton
Nolan
Perlmutter
Rooney, Thomas J.
Sewell (AL)
Simpson
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (MS)
Walz
Waters, Maxine

{time} 1059

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding missed votes due to
meeting with a constituent. Had I been present for rollcall vote No.
328, H.R. 50 Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of
2017, I would have voted ``yea.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, for personal reasons, I was unable to vote
this morning.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 327,
and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 328.

____________________