[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18536-18559]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2011

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 527.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 477 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. 527.

                              {time}  1450


                     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. 527) to amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis 
of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Denham 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 be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Small Business.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Graves) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  America's economic recovery remains sluggish, with the unemployment 
rate still at 9 percent. Jobs are the key to economic recovery, and 
small businesses are the primary job creators in America.
  A study for the Small Business Administration found that regulations 
cost the American economy $1.75 trillion annually, or over $15,000 per 
household.
  Mr. Chairman, while job creators suffer under the weight of these 
regulations, Federal employees are visibly writing even more to 
implement the mandates of new laws like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. The 
same study also found that the cost of regulatory compliance is 
disproportionately higher for small businesses. This hurts their 
ability to create jobs for Americans.
  Last month a Gallup poll found that small business owners consider 
``complying with government regulations'' as the ``most important 
problem'' they face.
  On February 8, 2011, I introduced H.R. 527, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, to provide urgently needed help 
to small businesses. Mr. Graves and Mr. Coble are original cosponsors 
along with the bill's 24 additional cosponsors.
  This bill primarily reinforces the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 
and

[[Page 18537]]

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
  It only requires agencies to do what current law and common sense 
dictate that they should be doing. Current law requires agencies to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis so agencies will know how a 
proposed regulation will affect small businesses before it is adopted. 
But the Government Accountability Office has found in numerous studies 
that agencies are not always adhering to these laws.
  For example, current law allows an agency to avoid preparing a 
regulatory flexibility analysis if the agency head certifies that the 
new rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small businesses. But these terms are not defined in the law, 
and agencies routinely take advantage of this and fail to prepare any 
analysis.
  The bill fixes this problem by requiring the Small Business 
Administration to define these terms uniformly for all agencies. Also, 
it requires agencies to justify a certification in detail and to give 
the legal and factual grounds for the certification. And this bill 
restricts agencies' ability to waive the Regulatory Flexibility Act's 
requirements.
  The legislation also requires agencies to document all economic 
impacts, direct and indirect, that a new regulation could have on small 
businesses. Agencies already must account for indirect economic impacts 
under the National Environmental Policy Act. Small businesses deserve 
the same level of scrutiny.
  This bill assures that small businesses will have a voice in the 
regulatory process. Currently, only three agencies, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau must consult with small 
business advocacy review panels before issuing new major regulations. 
Building on this, the bill requires all agencies to use advocacy review 
panels.
  Equally important, this bill strengthens requirements that agencies 
review and improve existing regulations whenever possible to lower the 
burden on small business. It enhances the Small Business 
Administration's ability to comment on and help shape major rules. It 
assures that the law is uniformly implemented so agencies can not 
interpret their way out of its requirements. And the bill improves 
judicial review.
  Some critics of regulatory reform may claim that this bill undermines 
agencies' ability to issue new regulations. On the contrary, the bill 
only strengthens the existing law with carefully tailored commonsense 
reforms.
  Especially in light of current economic conditions, this bill is a 
timely and logical step to protect small businesses from 
overregulation. Like the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 recognizes that 
economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators.
  The economy is already on shaky footing. It is more important than 
ever for regulators to look before they leap to impose more 
regulations. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to point out that the Crain study referred to 
already by the distinguished chairman of the committee, apparently he 
hasn't found out that it's been held in error in a number of ways but 
mostly by the Crain study people themselves, who said that their 
analysis was not meant to be a decisionmaking tool for lawmakers or 
Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the right level of 
regulation.
  In other words, the study is flawed because it fails to account for 
any benefits of regulation. So I want everybody to know that this 
correction about $1.75 trillion has been thoroughly debunked by not 
only CRS but other authorities as well.
  Now, this debate follows a number of pieces of legislation that we're 
considering. It's sort of a regulation tidal wave--or anti-regulation 
tidal wave: H.R. 3010, Regulatory Accountability; H.R. 10, which we 
will see soon, the REINS Act; and H.R. 527, the bill before us now, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, it's strange to say that this trio of public safety-killing 
legislation would make it harder to control and make safe our products 
that we count on. Under the law presently, rulemaking must make an 
analysis for every new rule that would have a significant economic 
impact on small businesses. Among other things, the bill would repeal 
the authority that allows the agency to waive or delay this analysis in 
response to even an emergency. It's hard to imagine how the bill under 
consideration would make regulations more cumbersome, would take 
longer, would risk national emergencies, and would lose a lot of the 
safety and health protections that we now enjoy. I feel that there 
hasn't been a careful consideration of what the real final goal is.
  The Wall Street Journal, which is no enemy of big business, said: The 
main reason United States companies are reluctant to step up hiring is 
scant demand rather than uncertainty over government policies.
  So even the business community recognizes that the big problem with 
our economy is not that rules are tying up businesses but that we don't 
have enough people buying, because they don't have enough jobs to 
create the demand. If you examine it carefully, as many on our 
Committee on the Judiciary have done, you will find that the safety 
standards of which we are really very proud are going to be compromised 
in a very embarrassing way.
  Regulations don't kill jobs; they save lives.
  There are plans underway--this is one of them--here in the House to 
undermine the regulatory process that guarantees the health and the 
safety of millions of Americans. I urge all of the Members of the House 
to carefully consider the direction of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Courts, Commercial 
and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for having 
yielded to me.
  Mr. Chairman, those who oppose H.R. 527 insist that those of us who 
support it are willing to compromise health and safety standards. Since 
criticism is not justified, we simply are refining the process. 
Excessive regulations and bad regulations serve no good purpose.
  My district is not unlike many others. We are still suffering from 
the recession. While we once claimed many manufacturing and producing 
distinctions, much of our manufacturing has either disappeared or has 
gone to other places. Bad regulations don't help matters. They create 
unnecessary costs, uncertainty for employers, do not improve public 
health or safety, and they are particularly burdensome for small 
businesses.
  Two critical laws that help ensure regulators will take into account 
the impact of proposed regulations on small businesses are the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act. In essence, these laws require agencies to 
conduct economic impact analyses of proposed rules on small businesses. 
Unfortunately, regulators routinely utilize waivers and exceptions from 
both laws and promulgate regulations without taking into account their 
economic impacts on small businesses.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act do not block the flow of Federal regulation. 
They, rather, help guide it. We need regulations and small businesses 
need regulations, but the regulations must be effective and efficient 
or they could do more harm than good.
  H.R. 527 will improve future regulations by requiring agencies to 
conduct the economic impact analyses of proposed regulations on small 
businesses before they are implemented. In doing so, it will enhance 
the basic requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility

[[Page 18538]]

Act and of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and 
it will extend the advocacy review panel requirements to all agencies, 
including to all of the independent agencies.
  The Administrative Procedure Act was not intended to create a regime 
whereby executive agencies could implement a regulation without 
recourse. Unfortunately, there are countless situations in which 
agencies have implemented rules and regulations that are unnecessary, 
redundant, or unjustifiably costly. H.R. 527 will help ensure that 
agencies do not overlook the critical interests of small businesses, 
and it will help prevent agencies from promulgating wasteful 
regulations.
  Finally, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that H.R. 527 will 
cost $80 million between 2012 and 2016. Although there may not be a 
quantifiable means to assess the benefits of H.R. 527, from the 
perspective of a small business, they are, indeed, priceless. Also, 
it's important to note that, among many others, the National Taxpayers 
Union, the National Association of Independent Business, the United 
States Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of 
Manufacturers have endorsed H.R. 527.
  H.R. 527 is critical for small businesses, Mr. Chairman, and it will 
not impede the ability of agencies to promulgate regulations. This is 
good government legislation. We do not need more regulation. We need 
better regulations, which is exactly what H.R. 527 will achieve; so I 
urge support in the final passage of this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen.
  Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding time.
  This bill amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, which 
requires agencies to engage in so much analysis and in so many new 
procedures that it basically befuddles the agencies in bringing forth 
any rules in the future. It is elimination by burdensome regulation. 
While it doesn't say it is eliminating rules, that's the effect of it. 
It subjects all major rules and other rules, those which have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
to review by small business review panels.
  The cumulative effect of these and other changes in H.R. 527 will be 
to undermine the ability of agencies to effectively regulate consumer 
health and product safety, environmental protection, workplace safety, 
and financial services industry misconduct, among other critical 
concerns.
  We talk about small businesses. Small businesses are important, and 
they create more jobs than any other sector of our economy, but small 
businesses are made up of human beings. To paraphrase Mitt Romney, who 
said that corporations are people, small businesses are people, too. 
Small businesses are concerned about consumer health and product safety 
because they are the victims of it. Small businesses are concerned 
about environmental protection and workplace safety and food and drug 
safety and, certainly, about financial services industry misconduct, 
which almost brought this country to its knees in what could have been 
a depression but for the work of our great President and the Congress 
that worked with him at that time.
  This bill does little to help small businesses shape or comply with 
Federal regulations. Right now, we can take for granted that the food 
we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, the places we work, the 
planes we fly on, the cars we drive, and the bank accounts in which we 
put our savings are going to be safe because we have strong regulation; 
but if H.R. 527 is enacted, it will be harder, much more difficult, 
maybe impossible, to provide those protections for future generations.

                              {time}  1510

  H.R. 527 is based on the well-intentioned, but false, premise that 
regulations result in economically stifling costs.
  In particular, proponents of H.R. 527, and of anti-regulatory 
legislation generally, of which we have seen an abundance in this 
Congress, repeatedly cite a thoroughly debunked study by economists 
Mark and Nicole Crain, which made the ridiculous claim that Federal 
regulations impose a $1.75 trillion cost on the economy.
  Ridiculous? Why, you say. Because they even admitted, and the 
Congressional Research Service said, it failed to account for any 
benefits of regulation. There are indeed benefits of regulation and 
great--and the Office of Management and Budget said great benefits 
outweigh costs.
  Moreover, the study was never intended to be a decisionmaking tool 
for lawmakers or Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the 
right level of regulation. But they still use that as the basis for 
this law.
  So let's focus on the real facts.
  H.R. 527 will bring agency rulemaking to a halt because of multiple 
layers of bureaucratic review and analysis that it adds to the 
rulemaking process. It is the de facto end of regulations.
  As Sherwood Boehlert, a colleague of mine here in Congress, of the 
previous Congresses from the State of New York and a Republican and a 
long time chair of the House Science Committee, recently warned, this 
measure ignores history--Newt Gingrich--``ignores history, larding the 
system with additional reviews based on previous efforts that have 
slowed progress while helping nobody.''
  Second, the bill clearly presents a serious threat to public health 
and safety for all Americans. It does this by eliminating the emergency 
authority that currently allows agencies to waive or delay certain 
analyses so they can expeditiously respond to national crises such as a 
massive oil spill, or a nationwide outbreak of food poisoning, or an 
emerging financial marketplace meltdown. We've experienced all of 
these.
  The priority in the face of an emergency is to have emergency 
agencies to say, sorry, we can't do this. We have to conduct regulatory 
analysis first before we aid the American people.
  H.R. 527 is simply chock full of crafty provisions to slow down 
rulemaking, requiring small business advocacy review panels to analyze 
rules promulgated by all agencies, and not just those from the three 
agencies for which review panels are currently required. Moreover, it 
would require review panels for all major rules, not just those that 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. And this bill would force agencies to engage in seemingly 
endless, wasteful and speculative analysis, including assessment of all 
reasonably foreseeable, indirect--indirect--economic effects of a 
proposed rule.
  I think we may see agencies purchasing crystal balls so they can 
comply with this inane requirement of looking into the future. As any 
first-year law student would know, it can take years of costly and 
time-consuming litigation to figure out exactly what is reasonably 
foreseeable and what is indirect. Where is Mr. Paul's graph?
  While adding analytical requirements and opportunities for industry 
to disrupt rulemaking, H.R. 527 provides absolutely no assistance to 
business in complying with Federal regulations, which is what small 
business really needs. And for those of us who should really be worried 
about the national deficit, this bill has a hefty price tag. The most 
conservative estimates, $80 million, and a more realistic estimate is 
$291 million over a 5-year period.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you.
  H.R. 527, like H.R. 3010, which we will also consider this week, is 
simply a wolf in sheep's clothing. What proponents seem to describe as 
commonsense revisions to current law actually would result in a 
dramatic overhaul of the rulemaking process, threatening agencies' 
ability to ensure basic health, safety, and other precautions.
  I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do so. Also the 
cumulative

[[Page 18539]]

effect of these and other bills would be to be undermine the ability of 
agencies to effectively regulate consumer health, work product safety, 
environment protection, financial services misconduct, and others. 
Right now we can take these for granted.
  This is a dangerous bill, and I would ask our Members to vote against 
it and think about the safety of the public and the future. Small 
businesses are people, as Mr. Romney said about corporations, and those 
people also suffer from lack of regulation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank our distinguished chairman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, when I talk to small business owners back in my 
district in Cincinnati in southwest Ohio, I continue to hear the same 
thing over and over again. Overbearing regulations are crushing their 
ability to grow and create jobs, and that's what we are supposed to be 
about is getting this economy moving and getting people back to work 
again; but the regulations are just crushing them.
  Over the last year, however, the Obama administration has enacted 
more than 3,500 new rules and regulations, and they have another 4,000 
pending. So rather than reduce the regulations, they are talking about 
putting on even more.
  Mr. Chairman, small businesses in this country are struggling. 
Unemployment is at record levels and our economy is showing little or 
no signs of improvement.
  We must pass legislation that reduces redtape and repeals burdensome 
regulations. This bill will reform the rulemaking system and provide 
much needed regulatory relief to small business.
  If President Obama is serious about job creation, then he must sign 
this bill. Small businesses are struggling to keep up with the 
overwhelming costs of compliance that his administration has put on our 
Nation's job creators.
  If Congress wants to give the American people a gift this Christmas 
season, let it be regulatory relief and the jobs that will result.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a 
distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from California, 
Judy Chu.
  Ms. CHU. I rise in opposition to the so-called Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. This bill shows just how out of touch the House leadership is, not 
only with the American people, but with America's small businesses.
  A recent poll conducted by the Hartford Financial Group asked small 
businesses to name their biggest barrier to success. Despite the 
majority's claim, do you know how many cited government rules and 
regulations as the biggest barrier? Just 9 percent. Instead, a 
majority, a vast majority, in fact, 59 percent of small businesses, 
said they struggle the most with finding qualified talent.
  So it's clear that this bill does nothing to knock down barriers and 
help the majority of small businesses with their greatest needs. 
Instead, it just slows down the regulation process and stops government 
from protecting the consumers from unsafe products, dirty air or water 
that could make them sick, a dangerous workplace, or gross misconduct 
in the financial industry.
  Our country's small businesses don't have time for this nonsense. We 
should be working on a bill that creates jobs and actually helps small 
business.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe), a former district judge and a senior member of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, when I meet with small business owners back in 
southeast Texas, the one thing they always tell me is that they are not 
comfortable with expanding their businesses or hiring new employees 
because of the Federal regulators. ``We just don't know what the 
Federal Government is going to do next,'' is what I often hear. And 
considering that the code of Federal regulations is currently over 
150,000 pages long, no wonder they are saying that they cannot plan for 
the future.
  Mr. Chairman, do we really need more than 150,000 pages of 
regulations to be imposed across the fruited plain? Good thing the 
regulators weren't around to draw up regulations on the Ten 
Commandments. No telling what that would look like.
  Anyway, a recent Gallup Poll found regulation and red tape is the 
most important problem currently facing business owners. That's right, 
not the economy but red tape. Why are we allowing the regulators to 
administratively pass many unnecessary rules that destroy this economic 
system?
  Unnecessary regulations hurt all American businesses, but hurt the 
small businesses the most. It's not easy for a mom-and-pop shop to hire 
a legal department to navigate through the ever-growing list of Federal 
regulations that may be applicable to their small business. In fact, on 
average, small businesses spend 36 percent more per employee per year 
complying with Federal regulations than large businesses do.

                              {time}  1520

  This legislation will help the problem by requiring that Federal 
agencies just analyze the impact of a new regulation on small 
businesses before adopting the regulation. Once a mom and pop shop goes 
out of business, there's often no going back.
  Regulators and elitist bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do not always 
know what is best for people who own a small business. Many of these 
regulators have never owned a small business or even understand 
capitalism. They have never signed the front of a paycheck. But yet 
they make rules. Congress needs to ensure that we do not over-regulate 
America to death and self-destruct our economic system.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Members of the House, it's important for us to realize who else has 
difficulty in supporting a bill that ends up creating unsafe products, 
promotes dirty air, and other kinds of harms to our citizenry. The 
American Lung Association is opposed to H.R. 527. The Environmental 
Defense Fund is opposed to this bill. The National Women's Law Center 
does not support this bill. Public Citizen is opposed to it. The Union 
of Concerned Scientists is opposed to it. And, indeed, a total of more 
than 70 organizations have all written urging us to very carefully 
consider what we are doing here today.
  It's absolutely critical, and it is very important that we understand 
that there is no evidence, credible evidence that regulations depress 
job creation. Now, this is great rhetoric, but we're passing laws here 
today.
  The majority's own witness before the House Judiciary Committee 
agrees with us. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared before the House 
Judiciary Committee on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, 
stated in his prepared testimony that the focus on jobs can lead to 
confusion in regulatory debates, and that the employment effects of 
regulation, while important, are indeterminate. He can't figure it out, 
and he was a pretty good witness for our position that regulations have 
no discernible impact on job creation.
  If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans 
back to work. The BlueGreen Alliance notes: Studies on the direct 
impact of regulations on job growth have found that most regulations 
result in modest job growth or have no effect.
  Economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these 
health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a perfect example. 
The economy has grown 204 percent and private sector job creation has 
expanded 86 percent since it was passed in 1970. And so, my colleagues, 
regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. We recently 
observed that 40 years of success with the Clean Air Act has 
demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic 
growth go hand in hand.
  What's in this bill is a provision that every regulation change would 
have to come back through the Congress. It

[[Page 18540]]

would be unthinkable that we could add this to our schedule, especially 
if there was a health emergency that required a rapid passage.
  So I want every Member of this House to examine the grossly different 
analyses that are being made here and come to your own conclusion. I 
think if you do, you will realize that regulations have no discernible 
impact on job creation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Michigan has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important bills 
that we will pass in Congress.
  I'm just amazed at what I hear from the other side--we're over here 
endangering safety; we're poisoning water; we're doing everything we 
can in the workplace. That's not what this is about. All this bill says 
is, when you put in a regulation, at least have some type of basis so 
the people impacted by it know where to go from there. Have some good, 
sound science. Let's have an economic impact study.
  Let me just give you five instances specifically. Talk to the doctors 
today about all of the regulations impacting them, and you'll hear 
complaints about spending more time on paperwork than with their 
patients.
  Talk to the banks. I was talking to a small banker, only 19 
employees. Two little banks in my district, they have to hire a full-
time compliance officer just because of Dodd-Frank, and that bank 
didn't do one thing wrong to bring about this economic collapse.
  And now the farmers. EPA is going to regulate cow manure under 
CERCLA, as opposed to the present rules.
  Several years ago, this House passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990. One of those was something called the employee commute option 
that said that counties around Chicago had to have something called an 
employee commute option that was forced carpooling. Well, one of those 
counties was McHenry County, which is still a rural county. And I had 
to work with Henry Waxman for 2 to 2\1/2\ years to come up with a 
reasonable interpretation and corrective language in order to make sure 
that the people of that county were not strapped with that incredible 
mandate and at the same time we did not compromise the quality of the 
air.
  The Hope Scholarship reporting requirements that said that the 7,700 
schools across the country had to report who it was that gave them the 
money--turned them into some kind of a supercomputer. And I worked with 
the 7,700 schools and with the commissioner of the IRS--this was a $100 
million mandate upon all of these schools in the country because nobody 
took the time to say, what impact will this regulation have upon the 
schools of this country?
  This before me is one day of regulation, just one day in America. 
Just one day in Washington, just one more day when the small business 
people have to read through 500 pages of 9-point type dealing with air 
particulates.
  And then I hear today that oh, you don't need any relief, it's not 
necessary. Regulations are good. And then we take a look at the impact 
that this has, the financial impact that it has on the small businesses 
today.
  This is a great bill. It's long overdue. And as a former chairman of 
the Small Business Committee, I say it's about time, and our colleagues 
on the other side should all vote unanimously for this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm glad my friend is still on the floor because he asked, what do 
the doctors have to say about this? The doctors oppose the bill. And 
I'd like to point out, the American Lung Association and the Center for 
Science in the Public Interest do not agree with you, and they agree 
with our position on the bill.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. In just a minute I'll be very pleased to.
  The Environmental Defense Fund, the Friends of the Earth, and the 
Union of Concerned Scientists are all in agreement with us. And so I 
want you to know that the medical people that have spoken about this 
bill are not in support of it.
  I will yield briefly to the gentleman.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, the doctors that I talk to--the experts themselves, not 
the lobbyists in Washington--I talk to them on a continuous basis. 
They're very upset with more regulations. And NFIB is behind the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment. These are not lobbyists. I don't know if 
these organizations have any offices here. But the Union of Concerned 
Scientists probably doesn't have any lobbyists. I doubt if the American 
Lung Association does.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I would, except that your side has far more time than my 
side does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close; so I will 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too am 
prepared to close on this side.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have two starkly opposing views 
of what this bill does. I have over 70 organizations that are from the 
labor movement, from the health movement, from the science world, from 
the Women's Law Center, from the Union of Concerned Scientists all 
telling us that this is a very dangerous process that we're involved 
in, that the results wouldn't be that the authors of this amendment 
intended to harm people or that they intended to produce unsafe air 
products or that they were supporting making the air unbreathable, but 
that is the result of this bill.
  It's been stated twice on the other side that we are accusing you of 
bad intent. I don't do that. I want you to be very clear. It's not a 
matter that your intentions are not honorable, but the results of a 
bill like H.R. 527 would create unsafe products. It would ultimately 
produce air that is more polluted than the air that we're dealing with 
now. It would delay the promulgation of regulations that we need. It is 
exactly going in the wrong way because we, as a matter of fact, need to 
have more regulation surrounding products, particularly children's 
toys. We want the air to be much better than it is.
  And so I urge my colleagues to examine the premises starkly different 
than have been presented here today and to join us in turning back and 
sending back to the committee a bill that would make our health much 
more endangered.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Job creation is the key to economic recovery, and small businesses 
are America's main job creators. But overregulation kills jobs and is 
especially burdensome for small businesses. Anyone who doesn't believe 
that probably hasn't spent much time in the private sector. Even 
President Obama, who has not spent much time in the private sector, 
wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and recognized that overregulation 
``stifles innovation'' and has ``a chilling effect on growth and 
jobs.''
  It has been 15 years since Congress last updated the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980. Experience during that time reveals that 
further reforms are necessary. The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements 
Act of 2011 makes carefully targeted reforms to the current law to 
ensure that agencies properly analyze how a new regulation will affect 
small businesses before adopting that regulation. In the current 
economic climate, with millions of Americans looking for work, we 
simply cannot afford to overburden small businesses with more wasteful 
or inefficient regulations.

[[Page 18541]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I look forward to its 
passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility 
Improvements Act of 2011. I was the original cosponsor. I want to thank 
Chairman Smith for the opportunity to work with him on this very 
important piece of legislation.
  Opponents will argue that the bill stops agencies from issuing 
regulations. However, in reality, H.R. 527 will force agencies to 
consider how their actions affect small businesses and other small 
entities. More importantly, if the effects are significant, agencies, 
not small entities, will have to develop less burdensome and costly 
alternatives.
  Shouldn't a government understand the consequences of its 
regulations? Of course, it should. And by doing so, the government may 
arrive at a more efficient and less costly way to regulate. In a 
nutshell, that is what H.R. 527 does.
  Some may argue that agencies already do this when they draft 
regulations. However, nearly 30 years of experience with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, or the RFA, shows that agencies are not considering 
the consequences of their actions, and it is about time that they start 
doing that.
  Government regulations do have consequences. Small businesses must 
expend scarce and vital capital complying with these rules. If there's 
a better way to achieve what an agency wants while imposing lower costs 
on small businesses, the sensible approach would be to adopt the lower 
cost methodology. This will enable small businesses to meet the 
requirements imposed by regulators while freeing up scarce resources to 
expand their businesses and hire more workers.
  H.R. 527 ensures the consideration of consequences of rulemaking 
through the removal of loopholes that the agencies have used to avoid 
compliance with the RFA. In addition, the bill will require a closer 
consideration of the impact of rules on small businesses and other 
small entities. Yet nothing in H.R. 527 will prevent an agency from 
issuing a rule. It just stops the government from issuing a rule 
without understanding its effect on America's job creators--small 
businesses.
  With that, I urge my colleagues support this very carefully crafted 
measure to improve the Federal regulatory process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Reducing the cost of regulation is a very important issue, but it's 
not going to turn the economy around. In order for this to happen, 
businesses need to see more customers coming through their doors--and 
not just during the holiday season we are now in. With this in mind, it 
is necessary to create an environment where regulations are not 
overburdening small businesses, as they do in fact bear the largest 
burden.

                              {time}  1540

  These entrepreneurs face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per 
employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing 
large firms. And this brings us to the bill before us.
  Too often on the House floor legislation is painted as either being 
totally perfect or completely awful. With this bill, neither of these 
characterizations is appropriate. In fact, on many fronts, H.R. 527 
contains several very positive provisions and will make a real 
difference for small businesses.
  Many of the provisions were previously advanced by Democrats in the 
Small Business Committee, and for this Chairman Graves and Chairman 
Smith and their staff should be commended. For instance, the bill makes 
agencies' regulatory flex analyses more detailed so that they cannot 
simply overlook their obligations to small businesses. It also gives 
real teeth to periodic regulatory look-backs, which require agencies to 
review outdated regulations that remain on the books. Agencies will 
also be required to evaluate the entire impact of their regulations, 
something that is long overdue.
  And it cannot go without mention that the bill brings the IRS under 
the purview of the RFA. This is a real improvement for small firms, 
which will undoubtedly benefit from greater scrutiny of complex and 
burdensome tax rules. These are all constructive changes that will 
bring real relief to entrepreneurs.
  With that said, there are other items in this legislation that leave 
you scratching your head. Adding 50 new agencies to the panel process 
is a recipe for disaster. Such a dramatic change will require new 
bureaucratic processes, more staff, and more paperwork.
  It must be ironic for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that this bill attempts to reduce Federal regulation by dramatically 
expanding the role and scope of government. In fact, H.R. 527 creates 
more government as a means to limit government. How does that make 
sense?
  It also applies reg flex to land management plans, something I have 
never heard small businesses complain about in my 18 years on the 
committee. Doing so will enable corporate interests to more readily 
challenge land use decisions, which could have adverse consequences for 
the environmental stewardship of public lands. The reality is that the 
RFA was just not intended to cover this action, and it should not do so 
going forward.
  Finally, it is important to note that the Office of Advocacy's 
footprint has traditionally been minimal, with a budget of $9 million 
and 46 employees. According to CBO, its budget will have to increase by 
up to 200 percent per year to handle the new responsibilities of H.R. 
527. It is already taxed in meeting its current role, and expanding its 
powers geometrically is well beyond its capacity. Members are well 
aware of the fiscal constraints facing the U.S. Government. Now is not 
the time to make costly statutory leaps when smaller steps might be 
more appropriate.
  So, in conclusion, there are some good and some not-so-good things in 
this bill. I want to acknowledge the effort by the bill's manager, but 
in the end it is not something I could support, given the imposition of 
too many questionable policies. However, I want to thank Chairman 
Graves for always being open to discussions, and I look forward to 
continuing our dialogue on this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from the 24th District of New York (Mr. 
Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 527, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
  The small businesses I meet on a regular basis tell me that 
regulation has become an overwhelming problem. Small business owners 
are the backbone of the American economy. I know this because I'm a 
small business owner. Like so many, my life was built by a belief in 
hard work, free enterprise, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a love to 
get out of bed in the morning and just do what I love to do, as you 
know yourself, Mr. Chairman. The preponderance of regulations is 
stifling that spirit.
  This country can't do well unless small businesses do well. They 
provide the jobs, the growth, and the opportunity for the rest of 
society. Small businesses are drowning in regulation. Federal agencies 
should periodically review their rules to ensure that regulations are 
not unduly burdensome. As with the 1099 reporting provision and the 3 
percent withholding rule, the law of unintended consequences can be 
crippling. Fortunately, this House has repealed both.
  We all agree that regulations are absolutely necessary to protect the 
public good, but we need to ensure that regulations reflect a proper 
balance that does not unreasonably hinder entrepreneurship, job 
creation, and innovation.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady from New York.

[[Page 18542]]

  My friend on the other side from Missouri, who is managing the bill, 
I was happy to hear you say that this measure that we are examining 
does nothing to hinder the rulemaking process. And I'd like to help you 
out in that area if I may because this expands in the bill the use of 
small business review panels to include rules promulgated by all 
agencies, and to include all major rules.
  I would say to the gentleman from Missouri that right now there are 
only three agencies that are affected. What this does, my friend, is 
extend the review process to every agency. Do you recognize, sir, that 
there are over 50 agencies in the Federal system? And so for it to be 
thought that this isn't going to change much is a grievous mistake. And 
of course I am here to help you out, to the extent that I can.
  The other thing that it does--and you think that this will not change 
the rulemaking process--is that this measure would force agencies to 
engage in speculative analysis, including an assessment of all 
reasonably foreseeable, indirect economic effects of a proposed rule.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations, 
Oversight and Regulations, the gentleman from the Sixth District of 
Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. The Obama administration is currently 
choking the lifeblood out of our Nation's middle class, small 
businesses, and entrepreneurs through excessive regulation. According 
to the Small Business Administration, regulations cost the American 
economy $1.75 trillion annually.

                              {time}  1550

  The Obama administration has issued 200 such regulations that are 
expected to cost our economy at least $100 million each, and seven of 
these regulations have a pricetag of over $1 billion.
  The President has long touted the job creation of his so-called 
stimulus. But every $1 million increase in the Federal regulatory 
budget costs 420 private sector jobs for hardworking Americans. This is 
why I am urging passage of House Resolution 527, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. This legislation will give real 
teeth to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, which mandated that 
Federal agencies first assess the economic impact of their regulations 
on small businesses before going forward with them. It is time to put 
small businesses first.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each 
side has.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 3 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Missouri has 5 minutes remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I need to set the record straight regarding the previous Member who 
just spoke about how many regulations have been issued under the Obama 
administration.
  Let me remind people here that, according to the conservative 
Heritage Foundation, net regulatory burdens increased in the years 
George W. Bush assumed the Presidency. Between 2001 and 2008 the 
Federal Government imposed almost $30 billion in new regulatory costs 
on America. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year 2007 alone.
  With regard to the number of pages of regulations, the Code of 
Federal regulations totaled 145,000 pages in 2007 alone. The Obama 
administration issued an Executive order, 13563, and a memorandum on 
small businesses and job creation, and the Executive order instructs 
agencies to seek the views of affected entities prior to proposed 
rulemaking. The Executive order also calls on agencies to engage in 
periodic reviews of existing regulations.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield myself 15 seconds more.
  If we're going to come here and, instead of dealing with the issues 
that are impacting small businesses--and that is access to affordable 
capital so that they could create jobs--but rather come and criticize 
the Obama administration for issuing regulations, let's set the record 
straight and talk about the regulations that were issued under the 
Republican administration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How much time do I have left, please?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is clear, when I have the 
ranking member of the Small Business Committee who has an enormous 
history of commitment to small businesses, and the ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee, both former chairs, opposing this bill, then 
we obviously know that it is problematic.
  What I know of small businesses is that they, frankly, want to have 
an anchor to promote and propel their business needs. The regulatory 
scheme and the underlying premise of this bill is to eliminate any 
anchor for our small businesses. And when you do that, you're clearly 
undermining their growth and opportunity.
  I would add, as well, that I challenge as to whether or not this 
debate today creates any opportunity for small business, provides them 
access to credit, guarantees any loans, creates any jobs. Absolutely 
not, and it is absurd that we would suggest that agencies that are 
trying to promote small businesses are stopping small businesses and, 
therefore, we want to implode the regulatory scheme.
  The APA provides an opportunity for due process through the court 
system. If our colleagues have problems with regulations, they can run 
to the courts. You don't have to implode the process to be able to 
address the problem.
  Let's help small businesses, let's discuss how to create jobs, and 
let's vote against this legislation.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 45 
seconds.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Since its enactment in 1980, the Reg Flex has reduced 
the burden of Federal rules on small businesses. It has evolved over 
time to include new tools, expanding its purview and making a real 
difference for entrepreneurs across the country.
  With this important role in mind, the legislation before us makes 
some essential changes. However, in other areas the bill goes too far. 
At a time of mounting deficits and growing taxpayer anger at how tone-
deaf Congress has become, H.R. 527 will dramatically expand the Federal 
bureaucracy at a cost of $80 million.
  For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady, my colleague 
from the Small Business Committee, pointed out that the Bush 
administration added $60 billion in regulatory burdens out there, which 
is not a good thing at all. In fact, that scares me in and of itself. 
In 8 years of the Bush administration you had $60 billion in extra 
regulations.
  The Obama administration has added $40 billion in only 3 years. So at 
the rate that that administration's on, it's going to far outweigh any 
administration.
  But my point is, I don't care what administration it is. I don't care 
if it's a Republican administration or a Democrat administration. I 
want to make darn sure that those agencies comply with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, and I want to make darn sure that those agencies take 
into account how much this is going to cost small business when they're 
implementing some of these ridiculous regulations that they're asking 
small business staff to comply with.
  Some of this stuff is outrageous, and it needs to be studied, or it 
needs to be taken care of, or it needs to be stopped. But these 
agencies--and again, I don't

[[Page 18543]]

care what administration it is--they need to have to comply with this 
and they need to understand what the consequences are.
  With that, I would urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, two of the bills before us this week are just 
two more bills that will not create jobs, endanger the public health, 
and waste the time and money of the American people. These bills are 
trying to block new regulations under the misguided notion that all 
regulations are bad and prevent economic growth. This misguided 
approach deliberately ignores that regulations have improved the safety 
of our children's toys, made our air and water cleaner, and even saved 
the lives and limbs of our nation's workers.
  As the AFL-CIO has H.R. 527, the so-called ``Regulatory Flexibility 
Improvements Act'' would expand the reach and scope of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act by covering regulations that may have an indirect 
effect on small businesses and adding a host of new analytical 
requirements that will make it even more difficult for agencies to take 
action to protect workers and the public. Almost any action an agency 
proposes--including something as simple as a guidance document designed 
to help a business comply with a rule--could be subject to a lengthy 
regulatory process. While the bill purports to be focused on small 
business, it would cover more than 99 percent of all employers, 
including firms in some industries with up to 1,500 workers or $35.5 
million in annual revenues. It is a special interest bailout for 
business.
  H.R. 3010, the so-called ``Regulatory Accountability Act'', is 
equally odious. This bill would effectively eviscerate the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act and Mine Safety and Health Act. As critics have 
noted, the bill would require agencies to adopt the least costly rule, 
instead of the most protective rule as is now required by the OSH Act 
and MSH Act. It would make protecting workers and the public secondary 
to limiting costs and impacts on businesses and corporations. If 
enacted, this legislation would be a license for businesses to cut 
corners and endanger workers and the public in the pursuit of ever 
greater profits--all at the expense of the public good.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting both of these atrocious 
bills so we can get on with the business of creating real jobs.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committees on the Judiciary and Small Business printed in the 
bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 
dated November 18, 2011. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 527

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Clarification and expansion of rules covered by the Regulatory 
              Flexibility Act.
Sec. 3. Expansion of report of regulatory agenda.
Sec. 4. Requirements providing for more detailed analyses.
Sec. 5. Repeal of waiver and delay authority; Additional powers of the 
              Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
Sec. 6. Procedures for gathering comments.
Sec. 7. Periodic review of rules.
Sec. 8. Judicial review of compliance with the requirements of the 
              Regulatory Flexibility Act available after publication of 
              the final rule.
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction of court of appeals over rules implementing the 
              Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Sec. 10. Clerical amendments.
Sec. 11. Agency preparation of guides.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF RULES COVERED BY THE 
                   REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Rule.--The term `rule' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 551(4) of this title, except that such term 
     does not include a rule of particular (and not general) 
     applicability relating to rates, wages, corporate or 
     financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, 
     facilities, appliances, services, or allowances therefor or 
     to valuations, costs or accounting, or practices relating to 
     such rates, wages, structures, prices, appliances, services, 
     or allowances.''.
       (b) Inclusion of Rules With Indirect Effects.--Section 601 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Economic impact.--The term `economic impact' means, 
     with respect to a proposed or final rule--
       ``(A) any direct economic effect on small entities of such 
     rule; and
       ``(B) any indirect economic effect on small entities which 
     is reasonably foreseeable and results from such rule (without 
     regard to whether small entities will be directly regulated 
     by the rule).''.
       (c) Inclusion of Rules With Beneficial Effects.--
       (1) Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection 
     (c) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the first sentence and inserting ``Each initial 
     regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a detailed 
     description of alternatives to the proposed rule which 
     minimize any adverse significant economic impact or maximize 
     any beneficial significant economic impact on small 
     entities.''.
       (2) Final regulatory flexibility analysis.--The first 
     paragraph (6) of section 604(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``minimize the significant 
     economic impact'' and inserting ``minimize the adverse 
     significant economic impact or maximize the beneficial 
     significant economic impact''.
       (d) Inclusion of Rules Affecting Tribal Organizations.--
     Paragraph (5) of section 601 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting ``and tribal organizations (as 
     defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l))),'' after 
     ``special districts,''.
       (e) Inclusion of Land Management Plans and Formal Rule 
     Making.--
       (1) Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``or'' after ``proposed rule,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or publishes a revision or amendment to 
     a land management plan,'' after ``United States,''.
       (2) Final regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection (a) 
     of section 604 of title 5, United States Code, is amended in 
     the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``or'' after ``proposed rulemaking,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or adopts a revision or amendment to a 
     land management plan,'' after ``section 603(a),''.
       (3) Land management plan defined.--Section 601 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Land management plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `land management plan' means--
       ``(i) any plan developed by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); and
       ``(ii) any plan developed by the Secretary of Interior 
     under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
     Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712).
       ``(B) Revision.--The term `revision' means any change to a 
     land management plan which--
       ``(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(5) of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 
     1604(f)(5)); or
       ``(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5-6 of title 43, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation).
       ``(C) Amendment.--The term `amendment' means any change to 
     a land management plan which--
       ``(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(4) of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 
     1604(f)(4)) and with respect to which the Secretary of 
     Agriculture prepares a statement described in section 
     102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)); or
       ``(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5-5 of title 43, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) and with 
     respect to which the Secretary of the Interior prepares a 
     statement described in section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).''.
       (f) Inclusion of Certain Interpretive Rules Involving the 
     Internal Revenue Laws.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 603 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``or a recordkeeping requirement, and 
     without regard to whether such requirement is imposed by 
     statute or regulation.''.
       (2) Collection of information.--Paragraph (7) of section 
     601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(7) Collection of information.--The term `collection of 
     information' has the meaning given such term in section 
     3502(3) of title 44.''.

[[Page 18544]]

       (3) Recordkeeping requirement.--Paragraph (8) of section 
     601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(8) Recordkeeping requirement.--The term `recordkeeping 
     requirement' has the meaning given such term in section 
     3502(13) of title 44.''.
       (g) Definition of Small Organization.--Paragraph (4) of 
     section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) Small organization.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `small organization' means any 
     not-for-profit enterprise which, as of the issuance of the 
     notice of proposed rulemaking--
       ``(i) in the case of an enterprise which is described by a 
     classification code of the North American Industrial 
     Classification System, does not exceed the size standard 
     established by the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 632) for small business concerns described by 
     such classification code; and
       ``(ii) in the case of any other enterprise, has a net worth 
     that does not exceed $7,000,000 and has not more than 500 
     employees.
       ``(B) Local labor organizations.--In the case of any local 
     labor organization, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without 
     regard to any national or international organization of which 
     such local labor organization is a part.
       ``(C) Agency definitions.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall 
     not apply to the extent that an agency, after consultation 
     with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration and after opportunity for public comment, 
     establishes one or more definitions for such term which are 
     appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
     such definitions in the Federal Register.''.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF REPORT OF REGULATORY AGENDA.

       Section 602 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, and'' at the end and 
     inserting ``;'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) a brief description of the sector of the North 
     American Industrial Classification System that is primarily 
     affected by any rule which the agency expects to propose or 
     promulgate which is likely to have a significant economic 
     impact on a substantial number of small entities; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), to read as follows:
       ``(c) Each agency shall prominently display a plain 
     language summary of the information contained in the 
     regulatory flexibility agenda published under subsection (a) 
     on its website within 3 days of its publication in the 
     Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy of the Small 
     Business Administration shall compile and prominently display 
     a plain language summary of the regulatory agendas referenced 
     in subsection (a) for each agency on its website within 3 
     days of their publication in the Federal Register.''.

     SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSES.

       (a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Subsection 
     (b) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required 
     under this section shall contain a detailed statement--
       ``(1) describing the reasons why action by the agency is 
     being considered;
       ``(2) describing the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
     the proposed rule;
       ``(3) estimating the number and type of small entities to 
     which the proposed rule will apply;
       ``(4) describing the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
     and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, 
     including an estimate of the classes of small entities which 
     will be subject to the requirement and the type of 
     professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
     and record;
       ``(5) describing all relevant Federal rules which may 
     duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, or 
     the reasons why such a description could not be provided;
       ``(6) estimating the additional cumulative economic impact 
     of the proposed rule on small entities beyond that already 
     imposed on the class of small entities by the agency or why 
     such an estimate is not available; and
       ``(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on 
     small entities or a specific class of small entities.''.
       (b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--Section 604(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``an explanation'' and 
     inserting ``a detailed explanation'';
       (B) in each of paragraphs (4), (5), and the first paragraph 
     (6), by inserting ``detailed'' before ``description''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on 
     small entities or a specific class of small entities.''.
       (2) Inclusion of response to comments on certification of 
     proposed rule.--Paragraph (2) of section 604(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``(or 
     certification of the proposed rule under section 605(b))'' 
     after ``initial regulatory flexibility analysis''.
       (3) Publication of analysis on website.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 604 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) The agency shall make copies of the final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis available to the public, including 
     placement of the entire analysis on the agency's website, and 
     shall publish in the Federal Register the final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis, or a summary thereof which includes the 
     telephone number, mailing address, and link to the website 
     where the complete analysis may be obtained.''.
       (c) Cross-references to Other Analyses.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 605 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) A Federal agency shall be treated as satisfying any 
     requirement regarding the content of an agenda or regulatory 
     flexibility analysis under section 602, 603, or 604, if such 
     agency provides in such agenda or analysis a cross-reference 
     to the specific portion of another agenda or analysis which 
     is required by any other law and which satisfies such 
     requirement.''.
       (d) Certifications.--Subsection (b) of section 605 of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``detailed'' before ``statement'' the 
     first place it appears; and
       (2) by inserting ``and legal'' after ``factual''.
       (e) Quantification Requirements.--Section 607 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 607. Quantification requirements

       ``In complying with sections 603 and 604, an agency shall 
     provide--
       ``(1) a quantifiable or numerical description of the 
     effects of the proposed or final rule and alternatives to the 
     proposed or final rule; or
       ``(2) a more general descriptive statement and a detailed 
     statement explaining why quantification is not practicable or 
     reliable.''.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF WAIVER AND DELAY AUTHORITY; ADDITIONAL 
                   POWERS OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY.

       (a) In General.--Section 608 is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy

       ``(a)(1) Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 
     2011, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration shall, after opportunity for notice and 
     comment under section 553, issue rules governing agency 
     compliance with this chapter. The Chief Counsel may modify or 
     amend such rules after notice and comment under section 553. 
     This chapter (other than this subsection) shall not apply 
     with respect to the issuance, modification, and amendment of 
     rules under this paragraph.
       ``(2) An agency shall not issue rules which supplement the 
     rules issued under subsection (a) unless such agency has 
     first consulted with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to ensure 
     that such supplemental rules comply with this chapter and the 
     rules issued under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may intervene 
     in any agency adjudication (unless such agency is authorized 
     to impose a fine or penalty under such adjudication), and may 
     inform the agency of the impact that any decision on the 
     record may have on small entities. The Chief Counsel shall 
     not initiate an appeal with respect to any adjudication in 
     which the Chief Counsel intervenes under this subsection.
       ``(c) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy may file comments in 
     response to any agency notice requesting comment, regardless 
     of whether the agency is required to file a general notice of 
     proposed rulemaking under section 553.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 611(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``608(b),''.
       (2) Section 611(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``608(b),''.
       (3) Section 611(a)(3) of such title is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (B) by striking ``(3)(A) A small entity'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) A small entity''.

     SEC. 6. PROCEDURES FOR GATHERING COMMENTS.

       Section 609 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and all that follows through the end 
     of the section and inserting the following:
       ``(b)(1) Prior to publication of any proposed rule 
     described in subsection (e), an agency making such rule shall 
     notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration and provide the Chief Counsel with--
       ``(A) all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in 
     making the proposed rule, including the draft of the proposed 
     rule; and
       ``(B) information on the potential adverse and beneficial 
     economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 
     the type of small entities that might be affected.
       ``(2) An agency shall not be required under paragraph (1) 
     to provide the exact language of any draft if the rule--
       ``(A) relates to the internal revenue laws of the United 
     States; or
       ``(B) is proposed by an independent regulatory agency (as 
     defined in section 3502(5) of title 44).
       ``(c) Not later than 15 days after the receipt of such 
     materials and information under subsection (b), the Chief 
     Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
     shall--
       ``(1) identify small entities or representatives of small 
     entities or a combination of both for the purpose of 
     obtaining advice, input, and recommendations from those 
     persons about the potential economic impacts of the proposed 
     rule and the compliance of the agency with section 603; and
       ``(2) convene a review panel consisting of an employee from 
     the Office of Advocacy of the

[[Page 18545]]

     Small Business Administration, an employee from the agency 
     making the rule, and in the case of an agency other than an 
     independent regulatory agency (as defined in section 3502(5) 
     of title 44), an employee from the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget to 
     review the materials and information provided to the Chief 
     Counsel under subsection (b).
       ``(d)(1) Not later than 60 days after the review panel 
     described in subsection (c)(2) is convened, the Chief Counsel 
     for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall, 
     after consultation with the members of such panel, submit a 
     report to the agency and, in the case of an agency other than 
     an independent regulatory agency (as defined in section 
     3502(5) of title 44), the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(2) Such report shall include an assessment of the 
     economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, 
     including an assessment of the proposed rule's impact on the 
     cost that small entities pay for energy, and a discussion of 
     any alternatives that will minimize adverse significant 
     economic impacts or maximize beneficial significant economic 
     impacts on small entities.
       ``(3) Such report shall become part of the rulemaking 
     record. In the publication of the proposed rule, the agency 
     shall explain what actions, if any, the agency took in 
     response to such report.
       ``(e) A proposed rule is described by this subsection if 
     the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of 
     the agency (or the delegatee of the head of the agency), or 
     an independent regulatory agency determines that the proposed 
     rule is likely to result in--
       ``(1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more;
       ``(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, or local governments, 
     tribal organizations, or geographic regions;
       ``(3) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
       ``(4) a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
     of small entities.
       ``(f) Upon application by the agency, the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may waive the 
     requirements of subsections (b) through (e) if the Chief 
     Counsel determines that compliance with the requirements of 
     such subsections are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 
     to the public interest.''.

     SEC. 7. PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES.

       Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 610. Periodic review of rules

       ``(a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, each agency 
     shall publish in the Federal Register and place on its 
     website a plan for the periodic review of rules issued by the 
     agency which the head of the agency determines have a 
     significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
     entities. Such determination shall be made without regard to 
     whether the agency performed an analysis under section 604. 
     The purpose of the review shall be to determine whether such 
     rules should be continued without change, or should be 
     amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives 
     of applicable statutes, to minimize any adverse significant 
     economic impacts or maximize any beneficial significant 
     economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities. 
     Such plan may be amended by the agency at any time by 
     publishing the revision in the Federal Register and 
     subsequently placing the amended plan on the agency's 
     website.
       ``(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such 
     agency rules existing on the date of the enactment of the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 within 10 
     years of the date of publication of the plan in the Federal 
     Register and for review of rules adopted after the date of 
     enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 
     2011 within 10 years after the publication of the final rule 
     in the Federal Register. If the head of the agency determines 
     that completion of the review of existing rules is not 
     feasible by the established date, the head of the agency 
     shall so certify in a statement published in the Federal 
     Register and may extend the review for not longer than 2 
     years after publication of notice of extension in the Federal 
     Register. Such certification and notice shall be sent to the 
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration and the Congress.
       ``(c) The plan shall include a section that details how an 
     agency will conduct outreach to and meaningfully include 
     small businesses for the purposes of carrying out this 
     section. The agency shall include in this section a plan for 
     how the agency will contact small businesses and gather their 
     input on existing agency rules.
       ``(d) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding 
     the results of its review pursuant to such plan to the 
     Congress, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
     Business Administration, and, in the case of agencies other 
     than independent regulatory agencies (as defined in section 
     3502(5) of title 44) to the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget. Such report shall include the 
     identification of any rule with respect to which the head of 
     the agency made a determination described in paragraph (5) or 
     (6) of subsection (e) and a detailed explanation of the 
     reasons for such determination.
       ``(e) In reviewing a rule pursuant to subsections (a) 
     through (d), the agency shall amend or rescind the rule to 
     minimize any adverse significant economic impact on a 
     substantial number of small entities or disproportionate 
     economic impact on a specific class of small entities, or 
     maximize any beneficial significant economic impact of the 
     rule on a substantial number of small entities to the 
     greatest extent possible, consistent with the stated 
     objectives of applicable statutes. In amending or rescinding 
     the rule, the agency shall consider the following factors:
       ``(1) The continued need for the rule.
       ``(2) The nature of complaints received by the agency from 
     small entities concerning the rule.
       ``(3) Comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 
     the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration.
       ``(4) The complexity of the rule.
       ``(5) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or 
     conflicts with other Federal rules and, unless the head of 
     the agency determines it to be infeasible, State, 
     territorial, and local rules.
       ``(6) The contribution of the rule to the cumulative 
     economic impact of all Federal rules on the class of small 
     entities affected by the rule, unless the head of the agency 
     determines that such calculations cannot be made and reports 
     that determination in the annual report required under 
     subsection (d).
       ``(7) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated 
     or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or 
     other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
       ``(f) The agency shall publish in the Federal Register and 
     on its website a list of rules to be reviewed pursuant to 
     such plan. Such publication shall include a brief description 
     of the rule, the reason why the agency determined that it has 
     a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
     small entities (without regard to whether it had prepared a 
     final regulatory flexibility analysis for the rule), and 
     request comments from the public, the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the 
     Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman concerning the enforcement 
     of the rule.''.

     SEC. 8. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 
                   OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT AVAILABLE 
                   AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 611(a) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``final agency 
     action'' and inserting ``such rule''.
       (b) Jurisdiction.--Paragraph (2) of such section is amended 
     by inserting ``(or which would have such jurisdiction if 
     publication of the final rule constituted final agency 
     action)'' after ``provision of law,''.
       (c) Time for Bringing Action.--Paragraph (3) of such 
     section is amended--
       (1) by striking ``final agency action'' and inserting 
     ``publication of the final rule''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, in the case of a rule for which the 
     date of final agency action is the same date as the 
     publication of the final rule,'' after ``except that''.
       (d) Intervention by Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--Subsection 
     (b) of section 612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting before the first period ``or agency compliance 
     with section 601, 603, 604, 605(b), 609, or 610''.

     SEC. 9. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS OVER RULES 
                   IMPLEMENTING THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 2342 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) all final rules under section 608(a) of title 5.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (3) of section 2341 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration, when the final rule is under section 608(a) 
     of title 5.''.
       (c) Authorization to Intervene and Comment on Agency 
     Compliance With Administrative Procedure.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``chapter 5, and chapter 7,'' after ``this 
     chapter,''.

     SEC. 10. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a 
     period; and
       (B) by striking ``(1) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Agency.--The term'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a 
     period; and
       (B) by striking ``(3) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Small business.--The term'';
       (3) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a 
     period; and

[[Page 18546]]

       (B) by striking ``(5) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(5) Small governmental jurisdiction.--The term''; and
       (4) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
       (B) by striking ``(6) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(6) Small entity.--The term''.
       (b) The heading of section 605 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 605. Incorporations by reference and certifications''.

       (c) The table of sections for chapter 6 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 605 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``605. Incorporations by reference and certifications.'';

       (2) by striking the item relating to section 607 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``607. Quantification requirements.''; and

       (3) by striking the item relating to section 608 and 
     inserting the following:

``608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy.''.

       (d) Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) In section 603, by striking subsection (d).
       (2) In section 604(a) by striking the second paragraph (6).

     SEC. 11. AGENCY PREPARATION OF GUIDES.

       Section 212(a)(5) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
     Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(5) Agency preparation of guides.--The agency shall, in 
     its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter 
     of the rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure 
     that the guide is written using sufficiently plain language 
     likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies 
     may prepare separate guides covering groups or classes of 
     similarly affected small entities and may cooperate with 
     associations of small entities to distribute such guides. In 
     developing guides, agencies shall solicit input from affected 
     small entities or associations of affected small entities. An 
     agency may prepare guides and apply this section with respect 
     to a rule or a group of related rules.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 112-296. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered 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 Mr. Critz

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-296.
  Mr. CRITZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 10, line 26, insert ``, or the cumulative impact of 
     any other rule stemming from the implementation of the Free 
     Trade Agreements,'' before ``on small entities''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CRITZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Trade is critical to the growth of small business. A quarter of a 
million U.S. companies export to foreign markets, the large majority of 
them small and medium-sized enterprises that employ 500 or fewer 
workers. In fact, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, more than 
230,000 small and medium enterprises now account for nearly 30 percent 
of U.S. merchandise exports. The number of such companies exporting has 
more than doubled since 1992 and, according to SBA, 96 percent of the 
world's customers live outside the U.S., representing two-thirds of the 
world's purchasing power.
  Given this critical role, we need to make sure trade agreements 
assist small businesses. Trade agreements should help reduce redtape 
and increase transparency, but too often small businesses lack the 
resources and foreign business partners available to large companies to 
navigate through opaque customs and legal systems to reach their 
customers.
  Numerous fees and other nontariff barriers that can be no more than a 
nuisance to large multinationals can be deal-breakers for small 
companies. Trade agreements must streamline rules, reduce nontariff 
barriers, and provide arbitration procedures so that even small U.S. 
exporters can successfully participate in foreign markets.

                              {time}  1600

  Trade agreements must also open up opportunities for small U.S. 
exporters to compete for foreign government contracts. U.S. companies 
should be given a fair shake at the important government procurement 
market in these foreign countries. Such agreements can help to lower 
the threshold at which contracts must be put out for competitive bid 
ensuring that even small U.S. companies can be part of the process. 
Some of those contracts for roads, schools, clinics, distance learning, 
and medical equipment, for example, can be ideally suited to smaller 
U.S. companies.
  My amendment makes sure that small businesses are not forgotten when 
trade agreements are implemented. It requires that agencies' regulatory 
flexibility analyses assess the cumulative impact of any rule stemming 
from the implementation of a free trade agreement. Doing so will make 
certain that small firms' voices are part of the process in these 
important deliberations.
  Being part of the process will enable small firms to benefit from 
trade agreements and use them as a means to access foreign markets and 
customers. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment even though I do not oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  The amendment aims to require an agency to account for rules 
implementing the free trade agreements when the agency considers the 
cumulative impact of a proposed rule. I support free trade because I 
believe it is in the best interest of American business, workers, and 
consumers alike.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I may differ on this issue, but 
in the context of this amendment, that is beside the point. It can't 
hurt to make sure that agencies consider the impact of rules 
implementing the free trade agreements in their regulatory cumulative 
impact calculations. I don't think the analysis will show that free 
trade destroys American small businesses. Quite the opposite is true, 
in fact. But that isn't a reason not to do the analysis. We should know 
how these kinds of regulations contribute to the cumulative regulatory 
burden on small businesses.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do support this amendment and hope to 
have the gentleman from Pennsylvania's support for the bill on final 
passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRITZ. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-296.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 23, add the following after line 24 and redesignate 
     succeeding sections (and references thereto) accordingly:

     SEC. 9. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 613. Exemption for certain rules

       ``Sections 601 through 612, as amended by the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, shall not apply in the 
     case of any

[[Page 18547]]

     rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. The 
     provisions of this chapter, as in effect before the enactment 
     of the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, shall 
     continue to apply, after such enactment, to any rule 
     described in the preceding sentence.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     6 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 612 the following new item:

``613. Exemption for certain rules.''.

       Page 24, line 13, insert after ``5'' the following: 
     ``(other than rules to which section 613 of title 5 
     applies)''.
       Page 27, lines 5 and 6, strike ``The agency shall'' and 
     insert the following:
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the agency 
     shall''.
       Page 27, line 18, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 27, add the following after line 18:
       ``(B) Treatment of certain rules.--In the case of any rule 
     promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security, this 
     paragraph as in effect before the enactment of the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, shall continue to 
     apply, after such enactment, to any such rule, in lieu of 
     subparagraph (A).''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to call upon the rational and reasonable thinking of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and really discuss an amendment 
that speaks the obvious.
  The underlying bill puts into process a regulatory scheme that delays 
the implementation of regulations. Whether you agree or disagree with 
that approach, we all recognize that securing the homeland continues to 
be a top priority for this Nation.
  I'm standing alongside some of our first responders looking over one 
of the Nation's major ports. Many who live in those areas recognize the 
vulnerability of America through her ports or aviation or mass transit 
or highways or bridges or dams.
  Every moment after 9/11 is a new moment in this Nation. My amendment 
simply says to waive the provisions of this bill, H.R. 527, when it 
deals with homeland security.
  I hold in my hand the National Security Threat List that lists the 
issues that our Homeland Security Department and intelligence 
communities have to address. The listing is not classified, so I will 
mention the many tasks that they have to address: terrorism, espionage, 
proliferation, the moving forward on the question of economic 
espionage, targeting the national information structure, cybersecurity. 
Why would we want to interfere with the movement of regulations to 
protect the homeland under the premise of this bill?
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that would 
waive the bill's provisions in light of protecting the homeland.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close; so I will reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me again appeal to the bipartisanship 
of my colleagues. This is a very troublesome bill, and this bill 
interferes with the normal process, if you will, of dealing with the 
regulatory scheme. Although it's called the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
I can assure you that the purpose of this legislation is, one, not to 
create jobs, and certainly not to help us secure the homeland.
  The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and 
complicated process allowing special interest lobbyists to second-guess 
the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, 
sparking a wave of litigation. This is what Homeland Security 
regulations would have to go through.
  Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 and 
since my membership on the committee that was a select committee, we've 
overhauled the government in ways we've never done before. Steps have 
been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 
are corrected.
  More than 220 million tons of cargo moved, for example, through the 
Port of Houston in 2010. That cargo has to be inspected. And the port 
ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive 
year. Just imagine a regulation dealing with the scanning or the 
security of that tonnage to be interfered with by H.R. 527.
  If Coast Guard intelligence had evidence of a potential attack on the 
Port of Houston and they wanted the Department of Homeland Security to 
address it or they used a regulation or there was a regulation in 
process, then it would have to be stopped by this legislation.
  It is important to recognize that homeland security is not security 
by appointment. It is not security by ``let me address regulations by 
having them vetted by H.R. 527.''
  This is a commonsense amendment that simply says, as it deals with 
the homeland security or the securing of our Nation as we look to be 
better than what occurred in 9/11 where agencies were not communicating 
with each other, where the fault of the cybersecurity system did not 
work, and we had the heinous tragedy of losing 3,000-plus of our souls 
in New York City. As we see the franchising of terrorism where there is 
the shoe bomber and the Christmas Day bomber and the Times Square 
bomber, it's important not to have a fettered Homeland Security 
Department in a regulatory process that is stopped by overlying 
legislation.
  This legislation is a job-killer, we already know. Let's not let it 
be a killer of Americans because it gets in the way of Homeland 
Security efforts doing the work that is necessary.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that asks 
simply for a waiver of this legislation as it addresses the question of 
securing the homeland and the regulatory scheme that is needed by 
intelligence agencies, our Border Patrol agencies, our TSOs that deal 
with aviation security, our cargo inspectors. As it relates to that 
work, our front line, let us waive this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 527, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. This bill would amend 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. The bill would expand the number 
of rules covered by the RFA and requires Federal agencies to perform 
additional analysis of regulations that affect small businesses.
  As a senior member of the Homeland Security and ranking member of the 
Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any 
legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's 
ability to respond to an emergency, which is why the Department of 
Homeland Security, DHS, should be exempt from this legislation.
  This bill delays the promulgation of federal regulations, and delays 
a Federal agency's ability to issue regulations when responding to an 
emergency and grants the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Office 
of Advocacy additional authority to intervene in agency rulemaking, 
without providing additional funding. Further, H.R. 527 repeals an 
agency's authority to waive regulatory analysis during an emergency.
  The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and 
complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second-
guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal 
challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and 
delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health 
and safety of millions of Americans at risk.
  The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to 
be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when 
the safety and security of the American people are at risk.
  According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, 
public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly 
impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last 
several decades, the benefits of Federal regulations have significantly 
outweighed their costs.
  There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of 
my colleagues to

[[Page 18548]]

protect corporate interests. This bill would make it more difficult for 
the government to protect its citizens, and in the case of the 
Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of our 
citizens.
  In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top 
priority for our Nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies 
foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to 
protect our country. The Department of Homeland Security cannot react 
to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are 
subject to this bill.
  Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we 
have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have 
been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 
do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped 
push the United States forward in how we protect our Nation. Continuing 
to make advances in homeland security and intelligence is the best way 
to combat the threats we still face.
  Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations 
puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th 
District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. 
The Coast Guard, under the directive of the Department of Homeland 
Security, is tasked with protecting our ports of entry. Of the 350 
major ports in America, the Port of Houston is one of the busiest.
  More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston 
in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for 
the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports 
in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of 
Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along 
our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the 
direction of DHS.
  If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the 
port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able 
to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without 
being subject to the constraints of this bill.
  The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only 
because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new 
information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency 
preparedness and response.
  There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted 
with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is 
important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with 
hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist 
attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a 
nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.
  On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United 
States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: 
terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.
  Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. 
Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the 
interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as 
operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private 
sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to 
protect the safety and security of the American people.
  This bill expands the review that agencies must conduct before 
issuing new regulations and the review they must conduct of existing 
rules to include an evaluation of the ``indirect'' costs of 
regulations, and grants the SBA authority to intervene in agency 
rulemaking. The measure also expands the ability of small businesses 
and other small entities impacted by an agency's regulations to 
challenge those rules in court.
  Under current law, the process already takes as long as eight years 
to complete. Given the nature of its mission, the Department of 
Homeland Security is the last agency that needs to be subject to more 
levels of regulation and scrutiny. Some advocates groups also have 
expressed concern that by extending the rulemaking process, regulatory 
uncertainty could increase, which may make it more cost effective for 
agencies to seek enforcement through the courts, and thereby reduce the 
public's ability to participate in the process.
  These costs add to the cost of doing business with the Department of 
Homeland Security, and eat away at the profits of our businesses, 
particularly our small businesses which often are not as equipped to 
absorb additional costs. Moreover, many businesses dealing with 
national security have higher costs because of expensive equipment, and 
as such are already working with lower profit margins.
  The prolonged or indefinite delay of these life saving regulations 
threaten the security, stability, and the delivery of vital services to 
the American people. I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, but I certainly do not want to slow the promulgation of 
regulations to a drip.
  I have offered this amendment to mitigate the uncertainty regarding 
federal laws and rulemaking in the area of national security because of 
the increased urgency when dealing with these often sensitive matters. 
The Department of Homeland Security is the newest federal agency, and 
as such already is subject to pioneering levels of oversight and 
scrutiny.
  I urge the Committee to make my amendment in order to ensure that 
life saving regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland 
Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The bill only requires agencies to do what common sense and current 
laws dictate they should be doing right now. The Department of Homeland 
Security is not exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Like other 
agencies, the Department should analyze how a new regulation will 
affect small businesses before issuing the regulation. If the 
Department needs to issue a regulation in a true emergency situation, 
such as one involving national security, it can already do so under the 
``good cause'' exception to notice-and-comment rulemaking in the 
Administrative Procedure Act. This good cause exception would allow the 
agency to bypass the analysis required by the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act as well.
  As written, the amendment would exempt the Department from H.R. 527 
but not from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, itself. The result of this 
would be two versions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act at play in the 
Federal Government--one for the Department and one for everyone else.
  Small businesses do not need any more confusion and uncertainty when 
they are trying to participate in the Federal regulatory process.
  For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 112-296.
  Mr. COHEN. 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 23, add the following after line 24 and redesignate 
     succeeding sections (and references thereto) accordingly:

     SEC. 9. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 613. Exemption for certain rules

       ``Sections 601 through 612, as amended by the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, shall not apply in the 
     case of any rule that relates to the safety of food, the 
     safety of the workplace, air quality, the safety of consumer 
     products, or water quality. The provisions of this chapter, 
     as in effect before the enactment of the Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, shall continue to 
     apply, after such enactment, to any rule described in the 
     preceding sentence.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     6 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 612 the following new item:

``613. Exemption for certain rules.''.

       Page 24, line 13, insert after ``5'' the following: 
     ``(other than rules to which section 613 of title 5 
     applies)''.
       Page 27, lines 5 and 6, strike ``The agency shall'' and 
     insert the following:
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the agency 
     shall''.

[[Page 18549]]

       Page 27, line 18, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 27, add the following after line 18:
       ``(B) Treatment of certain rules.--In the case of any rule 
     that relates to the safety of food, the safety of the 
     workplace, air quality, the safety of consumer products, or 
     water quality, this paragraph as in effect before the 
     enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 
     2011, shall continue to apply, after such enactment, to any 
     such rule, in lieu of subparagraph (A).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would exempt from this particular bill the rules it has 
when it relates to food safety, workplace safety, consumer product 
safety, air quality, and water quality--things we all hold dear, things 
that will be jeopardized if this bill passes.
  As I noted in my opening remarks, this threatens to halt agencies' 
ability to promulgate rules by adding analytical requirements and 
numerous opportunities for industry to challenge agency rulemaking. Yet 
you should be able to challenge agency rulemaking, but courts shouldn't 
be able to summarily throw them out based on a lack of knowledge that 
they have of an area in which the agencies are really expert, but 
that's what would happen.
  The societal cost of enacting H.R. 527 would be to place public 
health and safety at risk. As we enter this holiday season, it would be 
well to remember that the reason we take for granted that the food we 
eat and the water we drink--and the drinks we drink--at all our holiday 
dinners and receptions won't kill us or sicken us is because of 
effective rulemaking. Likewise, because of strong regulations, we can 
take for granted that toys given to our children or grandchildren won't 
poison them; but the consequences of failing to regulate can be dire.
  In 2006 24-year-old Jillian Castro became gravely ill after eating 
spinach tainted with E. coli bacteria. Her organs were rapidly 
deteriorating; her kidneys were failing; her red blood cells and 
platelets were dropping rapidly; and she nearly died.
  According to the best available estimates by public health and food 
safety experts, millions of illnesses and thousands of deaths each year 
in this country can be traced to contaminated food.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 
foodborne microorganisms have caused 48 million illnesses, 128,000 
hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths. Many of these could be avoided with 
the proper regulations of food and drug. That's why I ask that food 
safety be eliminated from this bill, because it will be expensive to 
treat these people, let alone the fact that they will die. The CDC 
estimates that salmonella alone affects a million people a year. Just 
today, the Food and Drug Administration issued a recall of grape 
tomatoes because of potential salmonella contamination.
  Other recent examples of regulatory failure include the Listeria-
tainted cantaloupes that killed 29 people across the country in 
October. Pedal entrapment issues that cause cars to accelerate 
unexpectedly resulted in Toyota's recall of nearly 2 million vehicles. 
There was Mattel's recall of nearly a million toys in 2007 because the 
toys were covered in lead paint. There are other examples of this.
  Public health and safety precautions have been on the books for a 
long time and were passed with bipartisan support. The fact is there 
were more regulations during President Bush's term than there were 
overall in President Obama's when you calculate the time they've been 
in office. Yet there was no call to cut back when President Bush was in 
office. It's only since President Obama has been in office.
  The Pure Food and Drug Act was enacted in 1906 by Teddy Roosevelt, 
then the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act in 1938. The Clean Air Act and 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act were enacted in 1970 when 
Richard Nixon was President. The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1977. 
They've served our country well for many years.
  If H.R. 527 is enacted without adopting this amendment, we can no 
longer take protections from these harms for granted because, in the 
future, agencies will be hamstrung from passing regulations to protect 
the public.
  I would urge us to pass this amendment and to protect our workers, 
our consumers, our small businesses, and our small business people when 
they eat their breakfasts, their lunches and their dinners, when they 
buy toys for their children and their grandchildren, when they drive 
their cars, and when they work in their workplaces.
  I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a positive vote.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, even the President and his 
regulatory czar, Professor Cass Sunstein, admit that over-regulation 
hampers job creation. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 is based 
on the fact that regulatory compliance is especially costly for small 
businesses, which are America's main job creators. In this economy, we 
have no room for error when it comes to over-regulation.
  The bill ensures that all agencies follow the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. H.R. 527 does not ask agencies to do anything that they should not 
be doing already right now.
  There is no reason to create the blanket exemptions proposed by this 
amendment. There are no such exemptions currently in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act for the categories of rules described in the amendment. 
Further, the amendment would create tremendous confusion among agencies 
and small businesses regarding which version of the law would apply to 
a future rulemaking. We need less confusion and uncertainty, not more, 
in the regulatory process.
  If the amendment stems from a concern about the ability of agencies 
to make rules in emergency situations, I would note once again that 
agencies may avail themselves of the ``good cause'' exception to the 
notice-and-comment rulemaking process already in the Administrative 
Procedure Act. If an agency justifiably invokes this exemption, it will 
not have to conduct the analysis required under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
  For these reasons, I 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 Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Peters

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 112-296.
  Mr. PETERS. 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 27, insert after line 18 the following:

     SEC. 12. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, 212(a)(5) the 
     Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
     section 2341 of title 28, United States Code, and section 
     2342 of such title, as amended by this Act, shall not apply 
     in the case of any proposed rule, final rule, or guidance 
     that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     determines will result in net job creation. Chapter 6 of 
     title 5, United States Code, 212(a)(5) the Small Business 
     Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, section 2341 of 
     title 28, United States Code, and section 2342 of such title, 
     as in effect before the enactment of this Act shall apply to 
     such proposed rules, final rules, or guidance, as 
     appropriate.
       Page 1, in the matter preceding line 6, insert after the 
     item relating to section 11 the following:

Sec. 12. Exception for certain rules.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and a

[[Page 18550]]

Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is no question that Congress must act immediately to help our 
Nation's small businesses succeed, create jobs and boost our economy. 
Unfortunately, instead of moving commonsense legislation to extend the 
payroll tax cuts for middle class families and enacting the American 
Jobs Act to help small businesses afford new hires and investments, we 
are today considering H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements 
Act.
  This legislation, while well intentioned, is a step in the wrong 
direction. In addition to making it more difficult for agencies to take 
action to protect workers and the public, it will also slow down agency 
guidance that could help create certainty and spur job creation. This 
bill will create ``paralysis by analysis'' by subjecting any action an 
agency proposes to a lengthy regulatory process. Even agency guidance 
issued to small businesses clarifying how well they can comply with 
existing rules will be slowed down considerably.
  This is why I've put forward an amendment to improve this bill and to 
cut through the additional red tape that it creates when it matters 
most, which is when new jobs are on the line. My amendment simply says 
that the new administrative hurdles that this bill creates will not 
apply to any rule, final rule or guidance that the Director of OMB 
determines will result in net job creation.

                              {time}  1620

  While my Republican colleagues keep repeating the story that new 
regulations are slowing down our economic growth, this simply isn't the 
case. A recent study by the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses of its members found that ``poor sales,'' and not 
regulation, is the biggest problem facing businesses today.
  Effective regulations can promote job growth and put Americans back 
to work. As someone living in southeast Michigan, I have seen firsthand 
the way increased fuel economy standards have made American autos more 
competitive while also saving drivers money on gas and helping our 
environment. According to the United Auto Workers and the National 
Resources Defense Council, these new standards have already led to the 
creation of more than 100,000 jobs.
  Whether it is providing small businesses with the guidance they need 
so that they can have the certainty while making investment and hiring 
decisions or enacting environmental reforms to help bring about the 
next generation of green technology, the Federal Government cannot 
waste any more time dragging its feet when it comes to job creation.
  For years, my friends on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly 
railed against government red tape. But let's be clear: If they oppose 
this amendment, they will, in fact, be voting to create more red tape 
and stymie small business job creation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, pro-jobs amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close; so I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  First of all, I would like to point out that the National Federation 
of Independent Business actually does support this legislation. I also 
would like for the record to show that a recent Gallup poll taken on 
October 24 of this year said that small business owners themselves cite 
``complying with government regulations'' as their most important 
problem. Now, that's why we are here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it puts the cart before 
the horse. The reason we require agencies to conduct regulatory 
flexibility analysis is so the agencies and the public will know how a 
new regulation will affect small businesses before the agency issues 
the regulation.
  The amendment would exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act any 
rule that would result in net job creation. We certainly know that 
regulations can destroy jobs. Even the administration acknowledges 
that.
  Whether regulations can ever truly create jobs is another question 
all together. Assuming that a regulation could create jobs, an agency 
will not know this without analysis first, which is what the bill 
requires agencies to do.
  There is no good reason to transfer this responsibility to conduct 
this analysis from the agency, themselves, to the Office of Management 
and Budget, as the amendment proposes.
  For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 112-296.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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:

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 12. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a 
     report on the cost effectiveness of the amendments made by 
     this Act. Such report shall include the following:
       (1) A list of all additional costs and resources that each 
     agency will have to expend to carry out this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act.
       (2) The effect of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act on the efficiency of the rule making process (including 
     the amount of time required to make and implement a new 
     rule).
       (3) To what extent this Act or the amendments made by this 
     Act will impact the making and implementation of new rules in 
     the event of an emergency.
       (4) The overall effectiveness of this Act or the amendments 
     made by this Act (including the extent to which agencies are 
     in compliance with the Act or the amendments to the Act).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to think that our colleagues are in their offices 
communicating with their constituents and doing much of the work that 
we do and writing probably other great legislative initiatives, and 
they are paying attention to this debate and they keep hearing the 
words ``small businesses'' and they want to know why would any of us 
have a disagreement about small businesses when we have, I think, a 
consensus that small business are in fact the backbone of America; they 
are the job creators of America.
  I recall many of us have initiatives. I have an initiative of 
visiting small businesses. Just a couple of weeks ago, I donned the 
clothing of a medical practice. I went to a beauty school and tried to 
do a little bit of hair design. I went to an energy company. I went on 
to a small export-import company, and I stood out as a safety officer 
for a construction company owned by a single mother.

[[Page 18551]]

  So we all speak the language of small businesses. And you would think 
that my good friends on the other side of the aisle would have looked 
more closely at how damaging H.R. 527 is because, for those who may be 
listening in their offices and others, right now you have a three-
agency framework of reviewing regulations dealing with small 
businesses.
  Now you're going to include that all the agencies have to get into 
the act in stifling small businesses' activities and their growth and 
opportunity. Remember now, right now we have three, and then we're 
going to open up the lot so that every agency now has to go through a 
regulatory process to determine its impact on small businesses. It 
expands the use of small business review panels to review rules 
promulgated by all agencies to include all major rules, and some of 
these, of course, having the positive impact on our small businesses.
  What is the significant economic impact? Nobody knows. It forces 
agencies to engage in wasteful, speculative analysis. It imposes an 
absurd and wasteful requirement on those agencies.
  So I have a simple amendment. Ask the question beforehand: What is 
the economic impact of all of this vast new inclusion of other agencies 
to come down on our small businesses? It requires my amendment, a GAO 
study, to determine the cost of carrying out this bill and the effect 
it will have on Federal agency rulemaking. Simple, bipartisan 
amendment, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close; so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me just continue looking for bipartisanship. I am hoping that I 
can convince my friend from Texas to not desire to have a can of worms, 
a potpourri of agencies coming out with the hand of oppression on small 
businesses.
  This is a simple question that I'm asking. The GAO, the Government 
Accountability Office, simply would be asking the question: What is the 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
which will greatly slow down the rulemaking process and substantially 
empower other competitors to small business to throw sand in the gears 
of rulemaking that will help small businesses, women-owned businesses, 
minority-owned businesses, disabled veterans?
  What is the reason for not agreeing to an important study? It forces 
agencies to again engage in wasteful, speculative analysis, including 
an assessment of all reasonably foreseeable indirect economic effects.
  We can do it ahead of time. Will this kill jobs is the question. It 
expands judicial review to include all agency actions and not just 
final agency action.
  Mr. Chairman, can we not find an opportunity to come together on 
this? I would much rather have a report to tell me how many small 
businesses will shut down waiting for agency review of the rules that 
would be helpful to them.
  Have we engaged with the Small Business Committee? Has anyone asked 
the ranking member of that committee, even the chairman of that 
committee, who are champions of small business? I don't think I have 
seen the chairperson, but I have seen the ranking member, who listens 
to small businesses across the country. If there is a regulation that 
is going to help a small business, this bill kills it.
  The small businesses are hanging on for dear life. Pass the rule. 
Pass the rule. Now you have put in all these agencies, dilly-dallying 
around trying to be able to find a way to stifle the growth of the 
small business.
  Mr. Chairman, common sense tells Members that it doesn't hurt to have 
just this one bipartisan effort to get the answer of the economic 
impact beforehand. Down in Texas we say, close the barn door before the 
cow gets out, or the cart before the horse, the horse before the cart. 
We've got all of that. We've got confusion.
  I am simply having a simple amendment that would allow the GAO to 
report on how we can better serve our small businesses and create the 
jobs that are necessary. I ask my colleagues, including Mr. Smith, to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 527, the 
``Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011.'' My amendment would 
require a GAO study to determine the cost of carrying out this bill and 
the effect it will have on federal agency rulemaking. In addition, the 
report must contain information on the impact of repealing the ability 
of an agency to waive provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act when 
responding to an emergency.
  This bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 in such 
a manner that it would result in significant delays in the agency rule-
making processes by mandating multi-agency analyses of both direct and 
indirect costs for rules proposed or finalized by a single agency.
  My amendment simply requires that the Comptroller General, within 2 
years after the enactment of the legislation, issue a report to 
Congress on the cost effectiveness of the changes implemented by this 
Act.
  The report would list all additional costs and resources that each 
agency will have to expend to carry out this Act and the amendments 
made by the Act.
  It would also show the effect of this Act and its amendments on the 
efficiency of the rule making process, including the amount of time 
required to make and implements a new rule.
  This study would report on any impact that this Act or its amendments 
would have on the ability to implement new agencies in the event of an 
emergency. Lastly, this study would examine the overall compliance of 
agencies with the Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act (RFIA).
  By requiring that multiple agencies conduct detailed economic 
analyses of a rule proposed by a single agency, each agency will have 
to expend time and resources to uncover the indirect economic effects 
of the proposed rule. This is unduly burdensome on a process that is 
already sufficient in length, as rules currently require a 30 day 
period after publication prior to effectiveness.
  There is one overarching problem with H.R. 527. Although it claims to 
make improvements, one thing it does not do is provide the needed 
clarification that the GAO has repeatedly pointed out, and that the 
agencies have asked for.
  In the past, there have been GAO reports showing incidents of agency 
noncompliance with the current regulatory flexibility rules for rule 
making. The reports cited that this noncompliance is due largely to 
confusion surrounding the meaning of ``significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' Agencies have expressed the 
need to better clarification of this clause to aide them in determining 
when rule making analysis and review is necessary.
  Another part of this expanded review and analysis called for in H.R. 
527 that concerns me is the potential it has to impede upon emergency 
rulemaking. Every so often, there are instances when an agency has to 
implement a new rule or regulation in response to an emergency. Under 
the current law, there is an exception allowing agencies to bypass the 
review process in the event of an emergency. The provisions of this 
bill cloud that exception.
  Furthermore, the rule-making process is made more cumbersome and 
expensive by requiring multi-agency review. If the purported reason for 
amending the Regulatory Flexibility Act with this bill is to save the 
American taxpayers money by including provisions requiring analyses of 
direct and indirect effects of proposed rules, then it should follow 
that the costs of implementing such provisions should not outweigh the 
benefits they provide.
  My amendment will ensure just that by requiring the Comptroller 
General to issue a report to Congress that includes (1) the additional 
costs and resources that each agency must expend to maintain compliance 
with this Act, (2) an analysis of the effect that this Act has on the 
efficiency of the rule-making process, and (3) an analysis of the 
potential difficulties that may arise in an emergency situation in 
which an agency must implement new rules.
  If the process by which government agencies create rules is changed 
to require the disclosure of all costs associated with a proposed rule, 
then shouldn't the Act that makes such changes have its own costs to 
the American taxpayers disclosed? My amendment will ensure that this 
disclosure is made to the public upon this legislation's enactment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 18552]]



                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I oppose this amendment because it is unnecessary and would result in 
a biased study by the Government Accountability Office.
  The study proposed by the amendment focuses excessively on costs to 
agencies to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and how the 
bill would affect agencies' abilities to pass new regulations. The 
study would not focus enough on how the bill would benefit small 
businesses and lead to better regulations, which is where our focus 
should be.
  It is worthwhile to require agencies to finally comply with the law. 
That is especially true if it means that agencies will reduce 
unnecessary regulatory burdens and free small businesses to create 
jobs.
  In the future, I certainly would like to know whether agencies comply 
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by this bill, or whether 
they remain disobedient. This amendment, however, favors the idea that 
the bill places too heavy of a burden on regulators.
  Fundamentally, the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to 
reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses, not on agencies. Job 
creators, not job regulators, are the key to our economic recovery.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 112-296.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 12. APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN STATUTE.

       None of the amendments made by this Act shall apply to any 
     rule making to carry out the FDA Food Safety Modernization 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 2201 note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to this hazardous and radioactive bill called the Regulatory 
Flexibility Improvements Act.
  Now, I want this body to consider my amendment to the bill for the 
following reason: The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act became law in 
January of this year, January 4, 2011. It was necessitated by a 
continuing series of incidents, such as the October 2009 Stephanie 
Smith incident, which I will tell you a little bit about. She's a 
children's dance instructor from Minnesota. She became partially 
paralyzed from E. coli. According to a New York Times article, ``The 
frozen hamburgers that the Smiths ate, which were made by the food 
giant Cargill, were labeled `American Chef's Selection Angus Beef 
Patties.' Yet confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show 
that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings 
and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together 
in a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in 
Nebraska, Texas, and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that 
processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill 
bacteria.'' Stephanie has sued Cargill, and I know that many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want to limit her 
ability to recover for this injury through misguided so-called tort 
reform.
  But getting back to this matter, this amendment is simple. It would 
ensure that Americans have access to safe and untainted food. It would 
create an exception for any rulemaking that seeks to carry out the FDA 
Food Safety Modernization Act.
  Every year one in six Americans gets sick from foodborne diseases. 
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act enables the FDA to better protect 
public health by strengthening the food safety system.
  This bill would make it virtually impossible for Federal agencies to 
protect public health and safety. Nobody likes to be tied up in 
redtape, but this bill would bring regulations to a halt and make it 
virtually impossible to enact new regulations. Currently, rulemaking 
agencies must make an analysis for every new rule that would have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
such as small businesses.
  However, agencies have the authority to waive or delay this analysis 
in emergency situations. Now, this bill, Mr. Chairman, would require 
agencies to determine the indirect costs a rule has on a business, and 
repeal the authority of an agency to waive or delay this analysis in 
response to an emergency that makes timely compliance impractical or 
imprudent.
  This summer there was a listeria outbreak linked to cantaloupes that 
sickened 139 people and killed 29. Just today, The Washington Post 
reports that Consumer Reports released an alarming study that found 
high levels of arsenic in samples of apple juice. Consumer Reports is 
now calling on the FDA to set standards for arsenic levels for apple 
and grape juices.
  The Consumer Reports Group is now suggesting that parents restrict 
juice consumption to children up to 6 years old to no more than 6 
ounces per day. For older children, it recommends no more than 8 to 12 
ounces a day.
  Now is not the time to hamper agencies, such as the FDA, that are 
charged with keeping the American public safe. If there is a legitimate 
concern that our food supply may be tainted, the FDA needs the 
authority to act quickly and without delay. It's essential that the FDA 
have the ability to conduct inspections as well as prevention programs 
without having to go through speculative paralysis of analysis of a 
proposed rule, nor should the FDA be forced to justify existing rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I oppose this amendment because it carves out an 
exception to the bill for regulations under the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  If agencies were doing the depth of pre-regulatory analysis they are 
supposed to be doing under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, then we 
wouldn't be here today.
  Small businesses create jobs, and jobs are the key to economic 
recovery. To help small businesses--like minority-owned restaurants, 
for example--create jobs, we need to reduce, not increase, the 
regulatory burden on them.
  The FDA is not currently exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
so it makes no sense to exempt the FDA from the bill, either.
  This amendment also would create confusion within the FDA by 
exempting only its responsibilities under the Food Safety Modernization 
Act from this bill. There should not be two versions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act in play at the FDA.
  For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 18553]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1640


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
112-296 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Peters of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 244, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 874]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--244

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Chu
     Cleaver
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Filner
     Flores
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Schmidt
     Webster

                              {time}  1707

  Messrs. CANSECO, McCLINTOCK, BILBRAY, GERLACH, and CUELLAR changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CROWLEY and McDERMOTT changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, on rollcall vote 874, on the Jackson Lee 
Amendment to H.R. 527, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 874, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Cohen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 248, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 875]

                               AYES--171

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell

[[Page 18554]]


     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Deutch
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Flores
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Markey
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Schmidt


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1712

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 875, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Peters

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Peters) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 243, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 876]

                               AYES--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--243

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt

[[Page 18555]]


     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Schmidt


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1716

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 876, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 250, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 877]

                               AYES--172

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Conyers
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Filner
     Giffords
     Grijalva
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Schmidt


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1719

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 877, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page 18556]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 250, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 878]

                               AYES--170

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachmann
     Bucshon
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Filner
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Reed
     Rogers (KY)
     Schmidt

                              {time}  1724

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 878, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gardner). The question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bishop of Utah) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gardner, 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. 527) 
to amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of 
potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes, 
and, pursuant to House Resolution 477, reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  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

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

       Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California moves to recommit the 
     bill H.R. 527 to the Committee on the Judiciary 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. __. PROTECTING INCENTIVES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO HIRE 
                   VETERANS.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     apply to rule makings or revisions of rules, if such rule 
     makings or revisions are for purposes of providing incentives 
     to small businesses (as such term is defined in chapter 6 of 
     title 5, United States Code) for hiring veterans (as such 
     term is defined in section 101(2) of title 38).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I rise today to offer a final 
amendment to H.R. 527 that, if passed, will allow the bill to be 
brought back promptly to take a vote for final passage. Mr. Speaker, 
this final amendment is noncontroversial and aims to do one simple 
thing: to protect the incentives that assist small businesses to hire 
veterans. This amendment comes at a very critical time for our small 
businesses and for our veterans.
  Several weeks ago, this House did something that most of America 
doesn't believe we do anymore. We came together, all of us--Republicans 
and Democrats. We voted on a bill, and we passed a bill together, 
unanimously, the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011.

[[Page 18557]]

  The bill pushes key provisions, like providing small businesses with 
incentives so that they will hire veterans who have been unable to find 
employment. As a new law, the tax credits that we offer in that VOW 
bill would require additional regulations to be implemented in order 
for small businesses to begin to hire our veterans. Our veterans need 
jobs--not tomorrow, but now. Yet this bill, the one we are considering 
right now, sets up many new hurdles and delays for new regulations, 
like those needed for the implementation of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act.
  In a little more than 2 weeks, we went from a 422-0 vote with that 
VOW Act to now potentially hindering our small businesses from hiring 
veterans.

                              {time}  1730

  However, we have a chance to fix that. We have a chance to fix that 
right now, and we have a chance to fix it and to bring back this vote 
promptly, to bring this bill and vote it today.
  So I ask my colleagues, especially those on the other side, what are 
your priorities? I know what my priorities are. My priorities are to 
small businesses and my priorities are to our veterans who have fought 
for this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side truly believe that 
small businesses are what create the jobs in America, then we can fix 
this bill by voting for my amendment. If you believe that our veterans 
should not have to fight for a job after having fought for our country, 
then we can fix this bill by voting for my amendment.
  If my colleagues believe that the over 250,000 unemployed veterans 
under the age of 35 deserve a job, then we can fix this bill by voting 
for my amendment.
  I know what this side of the aisle believes. We know what the choice 
is. It's about small businesses creating jobs and hiring these brave 
men and women.
  We want our small businesses to have those incentives so that they 
can hire our veterans now, not next year or the following year--now. We 
need jobs now.
  The bill itself raises a lot of regulations and hurdles to new 
implementation, but now we can fix the bill, and we can help our 
veterans and our small businesses. It's our duty here in Congress to 
look after those who have looked after the people of this country.
  My final amendment does this by ensuring that we allow those 
regulations that are needed to protect these incentives for the small 
businesses who want to hire veterans. I would have no doubt--I would 
never think that my colleagues on any side of the aisle would want to 
intentionally hinder the hiring of veterans, especially after I saw 
that unanimous vote right before Thanksgiving. Remember that--we 
finally did something together.
  So I ask all of you, let's do the right thing. Will you stand with 
our veterans and small businesses and protect those incentives that we 
voted for 2 weeks ago? If you believe it's the right thing to do, then 
you will vote for this amendment.
  If you believe that a 21 percent unemployment rate for our young male 
veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 is too high, then you will vote 
for my amendment to ensure those incentives to hire our veterans will 
be in place.
  I want to make clear once more to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle; a ``yes'' vote on my amendment will not prevent this bill 
from being voted on today.
  If adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and voted on for 
final passage.
  I ask my colleagues to do the right thing, to fight for protecting 
the incentives that will allow our veterans to be hired by small 
businesses.
  Regardless of how either aisle feels about the underlying bill, I 
know this chamber can make the right choice by voting ``yes'' on my 
amendment.
  Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GOWDY. The President in this very Chamber said we should have no 
more regulation than is necessary for the health, safety, and security 
of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the President in this very Chamber 
conceded overregulation has stifled innovation and chilled growth and 
jobs. Professor Cass Sunstein, hardly a conservative acolyte, said we 
must take aggressive steps to eliminate unjustified regulatory burdens, 
especially in today's economic environment.
  Mr. Speaker, 43 percent of the payroll in this country comes from 
small business, two-thirds of all the jobs created in the last two 
decades come from small business. Small business, Mr. Speaker, is the 
backbone of this economy and the single best way for all Americans, 
veterans included, but all Americans, to experience the majesty of the 
American Dream.
  So one would think that our colleagues would storm the aisle to join 
us in providing relief to small business, including veterans. One might 
think our colleagues would help us rush to form a phalanx against an 
overreaching regulatory apparatus.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let's stop using veterans as political footballs and 
start helping all Americans, including veterans. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Improvement Act of 2011 is a logical reform. It simply asks 
agencies to do the kind of pre-regulatory analysis they should have 
been doing anyway. Frankly, the bill seeks to enact much of what the 
President claims he wants with respect to regulatory reform, since 
small business creates most of our jobs.
  Since regulatory compliance costs are higher for them than for larger 
competitors, Congress passed the RFA of 1980 requiring agencies to 
analyze regulations in advance. Hardly a revolutionary idea, Mr. 
Speaker. Know the consequences of your actions before you act, 
especially when it comes to having a chilling effect on job creation.
  But the experience over the last 15 years has shown the law needs to 
be reformed, Mr. Speaker, and updated because agencies aren't getting 
the message.
  This bill requires agencies to do what they should be doing anyway, 
which is to calculate the impact of their regulations on job creators 
beforehand, to make sure all agencies follow the rules, not some of the 
time, not when they feel like it, but all of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens want to work. They want to meet the 
needs of their families. They want to meet their societal obligations, 
and we should be doing everything in our power to make sure regulatory 
agencies ``measure twice and cut once.'' And our job requires and this 
bill ensures that they get the message.
  For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
motion to recommit.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on passage of H.R. 527, if ordered; and suspension of the rules 
with regard to House Resolution 364.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 233, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 879]

                               AYES--188

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge

[[Page 18558]]


     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--233

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachmann
     Black
     Cleaver
     Doyle
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Heinrich
     Lujan
     Paul
     Schmidt
     Schock


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1755

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 879, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  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 noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 263, 
noes 159, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 880]

                               AYES--263

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--159

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee

[[Page 18559]]


     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Cleaver
     Doyle
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Olver
     Paul
     Schmidt
     Tipton


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1801

  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. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 880 on final passage of H.R. 
527, I was on the House floor, but inadvertently missed the voted. Had 
I been recorded, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 880, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________