[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.

                          ____________________