[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18685-18710]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY 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 materials on H.R. 3010.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). 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. 3010.

                              {time}  0914


                     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. 3010) to reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze and 
formulate new regulations and guidance documents, with Mr. Womack 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.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Employers across America face an avalanche of unnecessary Federal 
regulatory costs.
  Federal regulations cost our economy $1.7 trillion every year, over 
$15,000 for each household, according to the Small Business 
Administration. Yet the Obama administration seeks to add billions more 
to that cost.
  The administration's record-setting issuance of major regulations is 
particularly troubling. By its own admission, the administration's 2011 
regulatory agenda contains 200 regulations that typically will affect 
the economy by $100 million or more every year.
  For employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, the impact 
of these costly regulations is clear. Government regulation has become 
a barrier to economic growth and job creation. Faced with huge, new, 
regulatory burdens and uncertainties about what will come next, 
employers slow down hiring, stop investing, and wait for a bill from 
the Obama administration.
  What enables the administration to issue so many new regulations with 
so little regard for their costs is the outdated Administrative 
Procedure Act. Enacted in 1946, the APA's minimal limitations on 
rulemaking have hardly changed in decades and do nothing to control 
costs.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act fixes this problem by bringing the 
APA up to date. Under its commonsense provisions, agencies are required 
to assess the cost and benefits of regulatory alternatives. Unless 
interest of public health, safety, or welfare requires otherwise, 
agencies must adopt the least-costly alternative that achieves the 
regulatory objectives Congress has established.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act has bipartisan support in both the 
House and the Senate, including from a number of House Democrats who 
have cosponsored the bill. In large part, this is because its 
provisions are modeled on the Executive orders that presidents Reagan, 
Clinton, Bush, and Obama have issued to compensate for the APA's 
weaknesses.
  Opponents of the act claim that it requires the benefits of all new 
regulations to exceed their costs. They argue that as a result the act 
will prevent Federal agencies from issuing important new public health, 
safety, and welfare regulations. This is false.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act only requires agencies to adopt the 
lowest cost regulatory alternative that achieves the agency's statutory 
objectives. This assures that agencies will achieve all of those 
objectives but with much lower costs.
  Opponents also assert that the act's new procedural requirements will 
halt all Federal rulemaking, but the act primarily codifies existing 
Executive order principles and practices under which agencies have been 
able to issue regulations for years.
  The act's few additional requirements all are streamlined. They will 
improve the quality and lower the cost of regulations, but they will 
not unduly delay them. The act increases the transparency of the 
rulemaking process with more advance notices of proposed rulemaking, 
more opportunities for public comment, and more opportunities for 
public hearings. This will lessen the influence of all special 
interests.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act provides the greatest opportunity 
yet for Republicans and Democrats to join together and lower the job-
killing cost of regulations. And it allows costs to be lowered while it 
assures that all of Congress' regulatory objectives are, in fact, 
obtained.
  The bill also provides a clear opportunity for the votes of Democrats 
in Congress to match President Obama's words on regulatory reform. In 
his State of the Union address, the President said that ``to reduce 
barriers to growth and investment, when we find rules that put an 
unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them.''
  In Executive Order 13563, the President said that ``our regulatory 
system must promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and 
job creation; must allow for public participation and an open exchange 
of ideas; must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least 
burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends; and must take into 
account benefits and costs.''

                              {time}  0920

  The President was right. And the Regulatory Accountability Act does 
all those things.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Regulatory Accountability 
Act.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                Washington, DC, November 17, 2011.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On November 3, 2011, the Committee on 
     the Judiciary ordered H.R. 3010, the ``Regulatory 
     Accountability Act of 2011,'' reported to the House. Thank 
     you for consulting with the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform with regard to H.R. 3010 on those matters 
     within the committee's jurisdiction. I am writing to confirm 
     our mutual understanding with respect to the consideration of 
     H.R. 3010.
       The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was 
     created by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 
     legislation that originated in the House Committee on 
     Government Operations. The PRA assigned OIRA responsibility 
     for significant areas of the rulemaking process, including 
     information collection request clearance and paperwork 
     control and statistical policy and coordination. 
     Additionally, the PRA's requirements cover rules issued by 
     virtually all agencies, including Cabinet departments, 
     independent agencies, and independent regulatory agencies and 
     commissions.
       In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of 
     H.R. 3010, I will not request a sequential referral of the 
     bill. However, I do so only with the understanding that this 
     procedural route will not be construed to prejudice the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's jurisdictional 
     interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar 
     legislation and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my 
     Committee in the future.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform should this bill or a similar bill be 
     considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request 
     that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in 
     the Committee Report on H.R. 3010 and in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor. 
     Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 2011.
     Hon. Darrell Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman Issa: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's 
     jurisdictional interest in H.R. 3010, ``Regulatory 
     Accountability Act of 2011,'' and your willingness to forego 
     consideration of H.R. 3010 by your committee.

[[Page 18686]]

       I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain 
     provisions of H.R. 3010 and that the Committee's jurisdiction 
     will not be adversely affected by your decision to not 
     request a sequential referral of H.R. 3010. As you have 
     requested, I will support your request for an appropriate 
     appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the 
     event of a House-Senate conference on this or similar 
     legislation should such a conference be convened.
       Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this 
     response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional 
     Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you 
     again for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
                                                         Chairman.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin our discussion this morning with the reference that 
Federal regulations impose an annual cost of $1.75 trillion on 
business. I would like the Members to know that the reference made to 
this study is the Crain study. I'd like to use the name so that you can 
track exactly what is being said about it.
  The study was never intended to be used as a decisionmaking tool. Who 
says this? They said it as a preface to the study itself. And for the 
benefit of the 433 other Members besides myself and the chairman, I am 
going to put this in the Record and also make it available to all of 
our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.
  The Crain study was never intended to be used as a decisionmaking 
tool, and the Congressional Research Service, our own operation, 
criticized much of the Crain study's methodology and noted that the 
authors of the Crain study themselves told the Congressional Research 
Service that their analysis was not to be a decisionmaking tool for 
lawmakers or Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the right 
level of regulation. So every time somebody mentions this study again 
on the floor, I am going to refer them to the Congressional Research 
study, which has never been disputed or declaimed by anybody.
  In no place in any of the reports do we imply that our reports should 
be used for this purpose--that's the Crain study people themselves. 
That's not the Congressional Research study; that's the authors. And 
here is the Congressional Research study that I would like to introduce 
into the Record at this time.

               [From the Congressional Research Service]

   Analysis of an Estimate of the Total Costs of Federal Regulations

  (By Curtis W. Copeland, Specialist in American National Government, 
                             April 6, 2011)

   [CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of 
 Congress--Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, www.crs.gov, R41763]

                                Summary

       Some policy makers have expressed an interest in measuring 
     total regulatory costs and benefits (e.g., the Congressional 
     Office of Regulatory Analysis Creation and Sunset and Review 
     Act of 2011, H.R. 214, 112th Congress), and estimates of 
     total regulatory costs have been cited in support of 
     regulatory reform legislation (e.g., H.R. 10, the Regulations 
     from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, H.R. 10, 
     112th Congress). However, measuring total costs and benefits 
     is inherently difficult. This report examines one such study 
     to illustrate the complexities of this type of analysis.
       A September 2010 report prepared by Nicole V. Crain and W. 
     Mark Crain for the Office of Advocacy within the Small 
     Business Administration (SBA) stated that the annual cost of 
     federal regulations was about $1.75 trillion in 2008. This 
     cost estimate was developed by adding together the estimated 
     costs of four categories or types of regulation: economic 
     regulations (estimated at $1.236 trillion); environmental 
     regulations ($281 billion); tax compliance ($160 billion); 
     and regulations involving occupational safety and health, and 
     homeland security ($75 billion). Some commenters have raised 
     questions about the validity and reliability of this 
     estimate.
       For example, Crain and Crain's estimate for economic 
     regulations (which comprises more than 70% of the $1.75 
     trillion estimate) was developed by using an index of 
     ``regulatory quality.'' One of the authors of the regulatory 
     quality index said that Crain and Crain misinterpreted and 
     misused the index, resulting in an erroneous and overstated 
     cost estimate. Other commenters have also raised concerns 
     about using the index to estimate regulatory costs, and about 
     the regression analysis that the authors used to produce the 
     cost estimate. Crain and Crain said that they believe they 
     interpreted and used the regulatory quality index correctly.
       Crain and Crain's estimates for environmental, occupational 
     safety and health, and homeland security regulations were 
     developed by blending together academic studies (some of 
     which are now more than 30 years old) with agencies' 
     estimates of regulatory costs that were developed before the 
     rules were issued (some of which are now 20 years old). 
     Although the agency estimates were typically presented as 
     low-to-high ranges, Crain and Crain used only the highest 
     cost estimates in their report. The Office of Management and 
     Budget has said that estimates of the costs and benefits of 
     regulations issued more than 10 years earlier are of 
     ``questionable relevance.''
       Crain and Crain's estimate for the cost of tax paperwork 
     was based on data from the Internal Revenue Service and the 
     Tax Foundation, but OMB data indicate that the number of 
     hours of tax paperwork may be much higher than Crain and 
     Crain's estimate. On the other hand, the authors' assumptions 
     regarding the cost of completing the paperwork may be too 
     high. A threshold question, however, is whether tax paperwork 
     should be considered in the same category as regulatory 
     costs. OMB does not include tax paperwork in its annual 
     reports to Congress.
       Crain and Crain said they did not provide estimates of the 
     benefits of regulations, even when the information was 
     readily available, because the SBA Office of Advocacy did not 
     ask them to do so. OMB's reports to Congress have generally 
     indicated that regulatory benefits exceed costs. Crain and 
     Crain said their report was not meant to be a decision-making 
     tool for lawmakers or federal regulatory agencies to use in 
     choosing the ``right'' level of regulation. This report will 
     not be updated.

                           *   *   *   *   *



             Policymaking and the Crain and Crain Estimate

       As noted at the beginning of this report, Crain and Crain's 
     estimate that federal regulations cost $1.75 trillion in 2008 
     has been cited as evidence of the need for regulatory reform 
     legislation. However, Crain and Crain told CRS that their 
     report was ``not meant to be a decision-making tool for 
     lawmakers or federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing 
     the `right' level of regulation. In no place in any of the 
     reports do we imply that our reports should be used for this 
     purpose. (How could we recommend this use when we make no 
     attempt to estimate the benefits?)''\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \103\E-mail to the author from Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark 
     Crain, March 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       As Crain and Crain suggest, information on regulatory costs 
     alone, whether for individual rules or for all rules in the 
     aggregate, provides only one piece of information that 
     Congress and other policymakers can use in determining how to 
     proceed. For example, even if all federal regulations did 
     cost $1.75 trillion in 2008 (which at least some commenters 
     believe may not be correct), if the monetized benefits of 
     those regulations were determined to be greater than those 
     costs, then policymakers may conclude that those costs were 
     (in the words of Executive Order 12866) ``justified.'' On the 
     other hand, if the monetized benefits of federal regulations 
     were estimated to be less. than the estimated costs, 
     policymakers may reach another conclusion, or may decide to 
     examine any non-monetized costs and benefits of those rules. 
     But a valid, reasoned policy decision can only be made after 
     considering information on both costs and benefits.

  The Center for Progressive Reform is another study that notes that 
the $1.75 trillion cumulative burden cited by the study fails to 
account for any benefits of the regulation. I am going to, at the 
appropriate time, introduce that into the Record.
  The Congressional Research Service notes that the study's methodology 
is seriously flawed with respect to how it calculated economic costs.
  So I would urge the Members to be aware of what I am going to do 
during this debate the next time somebody names this study without 
naming the name of the study and the fact that it was put together by 
Mark and Nicole Crain, commonly called the Crain study.
  The Congressional Research Service notes that the study's methodology 
is seriously flawed with respect to how it calculated economic costs. 
The study relied on international public opinion polling by the World 
Bank on how friendly a particular country was to business interests and 
ignored actual data on costs imposed by the Federal regulation in the 
United States. The Congressional Research Service concluded that a 
valid, reasoned policy decision can only be made after considering 
information on both costs and benefits of regulation.
  The next thing I would like to do is examine what seems to be a 
political or legislative strategy that is being used in this debate. 
You see, there are three

[[Page 18687]]

bills that are antiregulatory bills--and there's no question or dispute 
about that--designed to slow or halt rulemaking and give industry more 
opportunities to disrupt the rulemaking process of the Federal 
Government. H.R. 3010, which we are taking up today, is one of them. 
H.R. 527, which we took up yesterday, is another one of them. H.R. 10, 
the king of all regulatory antiregulatory bills, is coming up next 
week, the REINS Act, which, for the first time in American history, 
determines that the Congress must also approve the rules of all the 
agencies, of which there are some 40 or 50.
  And for the benefit of every Member of the Congress, I am getting 
together every agency that would now be involved and that would have to 
have their rules--believe it or not, this is not ``Saturday Night 
Live''--would come through the Congress. Can you imagine what that 
would do to our schedule?
  These bills are blatantly and unhesitatingly designed to slow down 
and even halt all Federal rulemaking, thereby threatening public health 
and safety by undermining the agencies' ability to address a whole 
range of issues.
  What about food-borne illnesses? What about toy safety? What about 
infant formula safety? What about financial security?
  All three antiregulatory bills also give industry more opportunities 
to disrupt the rulemaking process. The bill under consideration now, 
for example, requires formal rulemaking and expands opportunities to 
challenge agency action in court. As if they need any help from the 
corporate lawyers that are all lined up to do their work at the present 
moment, but no, we want to give them more opportunities to go in court, 
as if they can't figure it out for themselves.
  H.R. 527 of the previous day does this by expanding the use of small 
business review panels. The measure coming up next week would require 
Congress to approve all major rules. Not only do we have to do that, 
but we have to do it within 70 legislative days before they could take 
effect, effectively, of course, allowing industry to intervene in 
Congress to stop a rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Here is another poll that I'm going to cite that will support what 
this administration's own Small Business Administration has found about 
the cost of these regulations. This is an article by the Gallup Poll. 
The article is dated October 24, 2011, just a few weeks ago. Here's the 
headline on the article: ``Government Regulations at Top of Small-
Business Owners' Problem List. One in three small business owners are 
worried about going out of business.'' The article was written by 
Dennis Jacobe, chief economist.
  Here's the first line and the finding of the Gallup Poll: ``Small-
business owners in the United States are most likely to say complying 
with government regulations, 22 percent, is the most important problem 
facing them today; followed by consumer confidence in the economy, 15 
percent; and lack of consumer demand, 12 percent.''
  Mr. Chairman, arguably, the administration is responsible for every 
one of these problems because of the administration's policies.
  I will now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Coble), who is 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 yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3010. I reiterate what I said 
yesterday regarding regulatory legislation, that when critics accuse 
those of us who support it and furthermore accuse us of being willing 
to compromise health and safety standards: not guilty. But we are 
guilty of trying to reduce the number of redundant, excessive 
regulations--bad, onerous regulations. To that, I do plead guilty.
  As I meet with representatives from industries in my congressional 
district and other districts here in Washington, one message is 
imminently clear: our regulatory process is out of control. There's 
enormous uncertainty over what actions agencies will take, there's 
uncertainty over which agencies have jurisdiction, and there's concern 
about the actions of independent agencies.
  It is important to note that these perceptions are not a part of a 
larger campaign to discredit the Republican or Democratic agendas. They 
highlight a growing perception that our government is simply out of 
touch. The process is missing checks and balances, which are the 
cornerstone of our democracy, while regulators have virtually limitless 
resources and power. The result has enabled special interests to impose 
their will on certain areas of our regulatory system after clearing few 
hoops and low hurdles. This was not the intent of the Administrative 
Procedures Act and explains a legacy of executive orders requiring that 
agencies issue narrowly tailored, less costly alternatives that began 
with the Reagan administration.
  Other costs continue to hit close to home, Mr. Chairman. They drive 
businesses to other countries, costing thousands of jobs. Many will 
argue that regulations create jobs. That may well be true of good, 
sound regulations; but ask many of the employers who have relocated 
their manufacturing facilities, and they will tell you it's in large 
part due to our regulatory government. Every industry in America is 
concerned about our regulatory regime, and there is little doubt that 
bad regulations have driven American jobs to other countries.
  The solution is not more regulation, Mr. Chairman. It's better and 
more effective regulation, which is exactly what H.R. 3010 is intended 
to create, much like H.R. 527, the small business regulatory reform 
bill that we approved yesterday.
  When the Administrative Procedure Act was implemented, few imagined 
that our government would issue a regulation that would threaten the 
viability of an entire industry. Today, unfortunately, many would say 
this has become the routine practice. Prime examples are the EPA Cement 
MACT rule, OSHA's Noise Guidance, and HHS's grandfather plan rule. Some 
describe them as misguided. Others would say they're downright 
reckless.
  H.R. 3010 addresses the situation by implementing new requirements 
that would give stakeholders a legitimate opportunity to improve 
regulations as they are proposed, promulgated, and ultimately 
implemented. In fact, most of the reforms included in this legislation 
simply codify President Obama's Executive Order 13563, Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review.
  Finally, the bill will not change any existing regulatory standard or 
requirement.
  The overwhelming view from my congressional district is that Federal 
regulations are driving American ingenuity and opportunity to other 
countries. Improving our regulatory process may be one of the most 
significant legislative considerations that we can provide to help 
preserve our safety and provide economic opportunity for future 
generations.
  Mr. Chairman, we continue to hear, Jobs, jobs, jobs, echoed from 
shore to shore, border to border. This is a good piece of legislation, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Steve Cohen, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
  Mr. COHEN. I want to thank the ranking member for the time.
  I have a nice speech that was written by a fantastic staffer that I'm 
not going to use today because I've used it in the past. Most of the 
speeches today have been used--or parts of them--on the other bills 
we've had.
  Because of what we've done this week and the wonderful gentlemen on 
the opposite side--Mr. Smith and Mr. Coble are two great, wonderful 
people who I think dearly of. They just have different philosophies 
than I have. Different perspectives.
  These bills have been bills to basically be anti-government bills. 
That's

[[Page 18688]]

what this Congress has been about. It's been about being anti-
government, and it's been about defeating the President of the United 
States. These bills which we've got would destroy the Administrative 
Procedure Act and destroy the whole process of government that we've 
known for decades.
  The fact is, President Bush had as many, if not more, rules than 
President Obama; but we didn't hear from the other side anything about 
the nefarious rulemaking process, the need for reform, the jobs that 
could be created by eliminating the rulemaking authority or stifling it 
and changing it, until President Obama became the President. We heard 
this morning from the other side that it's the administration that's at 
fault because of all the rules they've produced, and now they say some 
of rules can change. They say the administration is at fault for all 
the rules they passed. They made fewer rules than President Bush made. 
And there was silence on the other side. Silence.
  All of a sudden there's a roar. This whole week, when we need jobs, 
when our economy needs job, when our people need unemployment 
compensation, unemployment insurance continued for the 99ers--not the 
99 percent, although they're part of that--the 99ers in terms of weeks 
they get unemployment insurance; when we need the doctors and medical 
folks to get the Medicare fixed that we always put in to make sure that 
we continue to pay doctors a reasonable rate to treat our Medicare 
patients, we're not dealing with that. And when we need to be dealing 
with the payroll tax cut for the middle class, we're not dealing with 
that. We've spent a whole week on destroying government and being anti-
government.
  Rick Perry, one of the candidates for President on the other side, 
has talked about making Congress half time. How could we be half time 
when we're not accomplishing our jobs and creating jobs full-time?
  As Mr. Conyers talked about, next week we've got the mother of all 
anti-government bills, the REINS Act, which really is reining in 
government, a bill that would require every rule to be passed by both 
the House and the Senate and signed by the President within 70 or 75 
days before it goes into effect. That's Star Wars--or anti-Star Wars. 
It's really a big dark hole out there in the universe where all rules 
and regulations would go and die and never be seen again and just 
disappear.
  Well, that's not the way government is supposed to work or should 
work. And if we had that, how could we work half time under President 
Perry? We'd have to be working time-and-a-half. And we know there's not 
enough money for overtime. And President Perry doesn't want us to do 
that. He wants us to get a separate job when we go home. We go back to 
San Antonio, we serve half time as a Congressman and half time we work 
at Walmart. That's what he's suggesting.
  Who would really love this bill? The tobacco companies. Wouldn't it 
be great if we didn't have rules and regulations on tobacco and we 
didn't put little notices on tobacco that smoking can kill you; smoking 
can cause damage to infants; that pregnant women shouldn't drink or 
smoke. Tobacco companies would love this. Those rules and regulations, 
very burdensome, giving notice to people about the dangers of tobacco, 
which Europe has been doing forever and we need to put an end to 
because it costs us so much in medical costs and the lost of precious 
lives.
  The polluters would love this. The destroyers and plunderers of our 
environment, they'd love it, because wow, Olly, Olly, in free, we can 
do whatever we want. Removal of mountains, drilling; more oil spills, 
less regulation.

                              {time}  0940

  In an emergency, the government can't even respond to clean up the 
mess. That's what they're talking about. It's all phrased in the tones 
of small business, small business, small business. Small business is 
wonderful. We do a lot with small business. Small business is a jobs 
creator. But this affects big business as well. And it's big business 
who is behind this, not small business. Small business is the front 
used to help the polluters, the tobacco companies, and the others that 
don't want to see regulations that protect the American public's food, 
air, water, transportation, and other areas.
  The issue of judicial review has come up, and in this bill we give 
the courts more power than they otherwise had. The other side usually 
talks about the importance of the judicial branch simply being an equal 
partner; but in this position, the judicial branch could review any 
rule and regulation and make its own determination of cost-benefit 
analysis without expertise that the agencies have, and it would be the 
judiciary that had the final say. So it would give more power to the 
courts and more power, in fact, to the administration. The OIRA office 
in the White House would have more power than ever. So it's 
antithetical to much of which the other side argues about.
  This is not a good bill. It's not good government. And I would ask 
that we all vote against it and we get back to the jobs that we should 
be for--creating jobs for the American people and getting us out of 
this deep, dark, long recession.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Unfortunately, we hear a lot of words that are really irrelevant to 
the bill that we are considering here today. Once again, let me repeat 
that the Regulatory Accountability Act only requires agencies to adopt 
the least-cost regulatory alternative that achieves the agency's 
statutory objectives. It therefore assures that in all instances 
agencies will achieve those objectives, whether to protect public 
health, safety, or welfare or to satisfy some other statutory purpose.
  The RAA's key contribution is to require that, once agencies have 
identified means to achieve their statutory objectives, they will 
simply choose the means that impose the lowest cost. I don't know how 
anyone could object to that. This creates a positive cycle in which 
agencies and regulated entities compete to identify innovative, least-
cost means to achieve statutory objectives while they simultaneously 
produce the most benefits.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, 
the ranking member currently, the gentleman from California, George 
Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very sad day for America's workers. This 
country has spent great time and effort, along with the industrial base 
and the business base in this country, to make sure that when workers 
go to work every day they will return safely to their home. This 
legislation begins to bring that to an end because it would needlessly 
and recklessly expose our Nation's workers to preventable work-related 
death and injuries. It would do this by obstructing the ability of the 
Federal agencies to adequately respond to real safety and health 
concerns of our Nation's workplace.
  Under the current law, both the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration would be 
tasked to protect workers from exposure to risks or toxins over a 
working lifetime. However, this legislation would override that task. 
It would change the nature of the idea of protecting workers in the 
workplace to make sure we have the most effective means possible to 
protect those workers.
  It wasn't the dust standards that killed the textile industry in the 
southeastern part of the United States. The dust standards that were 
invoked in 1978--that were railed against by the textile industry--in 
fact extended the life of the textile industry by making it more 
efficient by bringing in a new generation of technology to that 
industry. What killed those textile industries were free trade 
agreements. They were among the most efficient mills in the world. They 
just couldn't stand up against the unfair competition from the Chinese 
and their textile industry.
  So let's understand what's happening here. This bill would change the 
standard of providing the most protective

[[Page 18689]]

standard that is feasible to providing a standard that picks the least 
costly approach. The least costly approach to protecting your hearing 
is to cover your ears, to cover your ears while you're working on a 
ramp at an airline factory, cover your ears while you're putting bags 
on an airplane. Cover your ears; that's the least costly. Eye 
protection: close your eyes, cover your eyes; that's the least costly. 
That doesn't work in the workplaces of America and the employers know 
it. The employers know it.
  What do you say to an ironworker working on a bridge? What do you say 
to an ironworker working on a skyscraper? Hold on tight? Hold on tight? 
We saw what happened when they went to the least costly effective 
restraints on workers working on skyscrapers in Las Vegas. They were 
killing them--a record rate of killing construction workers--but it was 
the least costly. They didn't think they should have to string a net 
three floors down to catch the workers as they fell; they just chose 
another method, the least costly.
  That's the Republican answer to safety in the workplace, stick your 
fingers in your ear? What do you do about breathing toxins? Get 
yourself a paper mask?
  When we started changing the vinyl chloride standards, not only did 
it make the workplace more efficient, it protected the workers. It 
created a byproduct that had great commercial value and expanded the 
industry by making them more efficient. What they used to waste, they 
now sell. What they used to waste and injure workers with, they now 
sell. That's the difference.
  This standard, what is it, the least costly approach? Don't tell that 
to United States Steel in my district. I just went on a safety tour 
with the workers and with the management, and they told me how they've 
changed the traffic patterns, the pedestrian patterns, the vehicle 
codes, all of the changes inside of the steel mill because they want 
injury-free days, injury-free months, and injury-free years.
  Take a tour of the Chevron refinery in my district, Dow Chemical, 
DuPont. Safety is their number one job daily in that facility, and they 
take pride in it. They invest a lot of money in it because they know 
what an unsafe workplace, what a dirty workplace, what a cluttered 
workplace costs them in lost time and productivity.
  This bill goes counter to the best practices in industry, counter to 
the best practices in small businesses. This just doesn't work in 
modern industry. This is a throwback to the seventies or the sixties, 
where miners just assumed they had to consume coal dust and die of 
black lung; where steelworkers, they fell into open-hearth furnaces in 
the old mills. Today, you can get run over by a coal roll conveyance 
system, you can get caught up in a rolling line, but you don't because 
they invest in your safety. And now the American Government is telling 
them you won't have to invest in this safety.
  I think for most industries they're going to ignore that because 
they've been to the other side. They know what it was like to have 
casualties, and they know that that doesn't work. They know they can't 
stand. You can bankrupt the companies with black lung today and cotton 
dust.
  We still have grain elevators blow up in this country. When I came to 
Congress, they were blowing up on a daily basis. But we have dust 
standards now and we saved workers lives, but we still tragically have 
a few accidents.
  You can ignore the standards, as they did on the British Petroleum 
rig, and you can kill the workers because you avoided the process 
safety standards on that rig. In Texas City, Texas, you can blow up the 
workers because you ignore the standards--and they knowingly ignored 
them. That was the least costly they thought, at British Petroleum, was 
to ignore the standards. When they went to the boardroom in London and 
they raised this issue with the board of directors, they chose the 
least costly approach. They chose the least costly approach. And they 
had one of the worst safety records in America, British Petroleum, of 
blowing up their own facilities and killing their workers. They chose 
the least costly approach.
  This legislation imposes--if you want to do something right, it's 
just delay for delay's sake. And the chairman has pointed that out and 
Mr. Cohen has pointed that out, how you just turn this over to a 
litigation process before you ever get around to the question of 
protecting your workers.
  This legislation makes the workplace that our family members go to, 
that our neighbors go to, that our friends go to less safe than it is 
today.

                              {time}  0950

  It impedes the progress to apply new technology to new knowledge to 
the workplace to make it safer. That's what this legislation does. 
That's not what a modern corporation wants; that's not what a modern 
workplace should be for workers who go into it; and it's not where they 
want to go to work.
  It's just unacceptable that we have this legislation at this time in 
our history. This legislation is an attack on the workplaces where 
middle class Americans go to work. These are their workplaces. These 
are the hot, heavy, dirty workplaces. These are the complex workplaces 
that pose risk of injury and illness to the workers in our workplaces.
  This causes you to fall out of the middle class. Millions of 
Americans are falling out of the middle class because of the income 
disparity in this country and the unfairness in this country.
  There's another way to fall out of the middle class. You can fall out 
of the middle class; it's not just a question of lower pay. You can get 
hurt on the job, you lose your income, you become disabled, you can't 
go back to your full earnings. You end up on a disability program 
because you were injured on the job. All you did was show up and go to 
work. But under this legislation, you're more likely to be hurt.
  You can reverse the dramatic downturn in black lung, as we saw in the 
Massey mines, where they wouldn't clean up the coal dust, and they 
killed 29 workers in the process. Over thousands of warnings, but the 
lawyers and the litigators prevented the standards ever from coming 
into place, the penalties from ever being put into place. They 
completely gamed the system.
  That's how you can fall out of the middle class; or you can die in an 
explosion, as people did in Tennessee earlier this year, as they did in 
Georgia earlier this year, because dust standards weren't properly met; 
or as happened in Connecticut, where they didn't apply the safety 
standards to disconnecting the natural gas lines. Yes, you can do that 
and you fall right out of the middle class.
  You lose your spouse in a construction site, in an injury, a trench 
caves in, a worker falls off a skyscraper--that's how you can fall out 
of the middle class. And it happens, it happens to American families 
every day.
  We made a decision, as a Nation, that we would go in a different 
direction. We would look out for these workers, we would provide 
margins of protection, we would improve the safety in the workplace. 
This legislation undoes that for workers all across the country--the 
least costly way.
  You know, I worked in the refineries in my district, and I saw 
workers fall face down in the bottom of those huge oil tanks that we 
were cleaning out because they had no respiratory gear, because it was 
before OSHA. I saw workers throw up.
  I worked on the tankers going out to sea, and I saw workers fall a 
couple of stories into an empty oil tank on an oil tanker because they 
weren't connected to the ladders; there was no safety device. You went 
up the ladders; but if the fumes got you first, you fell. I saw workers 
that couldn't tell you what day it was when they came out of those 
tanks after cleaning them.
  I saw workers fall into vats in the canneries when I worked in the 
canneries.
  I saw workers on construction jobs get hit by moving equipment when I 
worked on a construction job. This isn't speculation. This is what 
happens to people all across this country every day they go to work.
  And yet we stand here, in the Congress of the United States, and we 
say

[[Page 18690]]

we want to make sure when a member of your family goes to work, that 
they return home safely every day. That's not what this legislation 
does. This legislation makes it more likely that they're not going to 
return home safely and they're not going to return home at all.
  We ought to reject this legislation and understand how far back in 
the past it takes us. It's against the best business practices of this 
Nation. It's against all of the success we've had in making the 
workplace safe for the workers and safe for the employers and safe for 
the profit measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The AFL-CIO has backed up what the ranking member, Mr. Miller, of 
Education and Labor has said. They warn that H.R. 3010 would upend more 
than 40 years of labor, health, safety and environmental laws, and 
threaten new needed protections. It would cripple the regulatory 
process and make protecting workers and the public secondary to 
limiting costs and impacts on business and corporations.

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                Washington, DC, November 28, 2011.
       Dear Representative: When the Congress returns from the 
     Thanksgiving break the House is expected to vote on three 
     ``regulatory reform'' bills--H.R. 10, the Regulations from 
     the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (the REINS Act), H.R. 3010, 
     the Regulatory Accountability Act, and H.R. 527, the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. Each of these bills 
     would up-end the entire regulatory system making it 
     impossible for the government to protect workers and the 
     public from workplace hazards, dirty air and water, unsafe 
     drugs, tainted food and Wall Street abuses. The AFL-CIO 
     strongly urges you to oppose each of these bills.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA)--H.R. 3010--is a 
     particularly harmful measure. It amends the Administrative 
     Procedure Act (APA), but it goes far beyond establishing 
     procedures for rulemaking. The RAA acts as a ``supermandate'' 
     overriding the requirements of landmark legislation such as 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Mine Safety and 
     Health Act. 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.
       The RAA will not improve the regulatory process; it will 
     cripple it. The bill adds dozens of new analytical, 
     procedural, and judicial review requirements to the 
     rulemaking process, which will add years to the process. The 
     development of major workplace safety rules already takes 6-
     10 years; the RAA will further delay these rules and cost 
     workers their lives.
       The RAA substitutes formal rulemaking for the current 
     procedures for public participation for high impact rules and 
     for other major rules upon request. These formal rulemaking 
     procedures will make it more difficult for workers and 
     members of the public to participate, and give greater access 
     and influence to business groups that have the resources to 
     hire lawyers and lobbyists to participate in this complex 
     process. For agencies that already provide for public 
     hearings, such as OSHA and MSHA, the bill would substitute 
     formal rulemaking for the development of all new rules, 
     overriding the effective public participation processes 
     conducted by these agencies.
       H.R. 3010 would subject all agencies--including independent 
     agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 
     National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Consuumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau (CFPB) to these new analytical and 
     procedural requirements. It would be much more difficult for 
     agencies to develop and issue new financial reform rules and 
     consumer protection rules required under recently enacted 
     legislation.
       The REINS Act (H.R. 10) would radically alter the 
     regulatory process by requiring Congress to vote to approve 
     all major rules before they can go into effect. Rules not 
     affirmatively acted on by both the House and the Senate 
     within 70 legislative days would die. Under the REINS Act, 
     politics, not scientific judgment or expertise would dictate 
     all regulatory actions. Corporate opposition and influence 
     would swamp the public's interest and block needed 
     protections.
       H.R. 10 is impractical, unworkable and unnecessary. 
     Congress has neither the time nor expertise to consider and 
     act on detailed, technical and scientific issues. Moreover, 
     Congress already has the authority to disapprove rules 
     through the Congressional Review Act or block their 
     implementation by withholding funding.
       H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, 
     expands 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. 
     Virtually any action an agency proposes even 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% of all employers, including firms in some industries 
     with up to 1,500 workers or $35.5 million in annual revenues.
       This bill also creates a small business ``czar'' by 
     increasing the powers of the Chief Counsel of Small Business 
     Advocacy. This individual would become a super-regulator, 
     with new powers to review proposed regulations and suggest 
     alternatives. Agencies would be subject to review by both the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Chief Counsel, adding 
     to regulatory delay.
       H.R. 3010, H.R. 10 and H.R. 527 would further tilt the 
     regulatory process in favor of business groups and others who 
     want to stop regulations, and make it much more difficult for 
     the government to protect workers and the public. These are 
     dangerous proposals that will not create one new job or solve 
     any of the pressing problems facing our country.
       The AFL-CIO strongly opposes H.R. 3010, H.R. 10 and H.R. 
     527 and urges you to vote against all three bills.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
                          Director, Government Affairs Department.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I realize some people want to close their eyes and close their ears 
so they don't see or hear the facts. There's an old adage that none are 
so blind as those who don't want to see the wisdom of the facts.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the sound and fury that we've heard, let me 
repeat a fact; and the fact I want to repeat is this: that the bill 
always allows agencies to meet statutory objectives. If, for example, 
only one rulemaking alternative meets statutory objectives, the agency 
may adopt that alternative, even if its cost exceeds its benefits.
  The bill generally requires agencies to adopt the least costly 
alternative that meets statutory objectives if more than one 
alternative meets those objectives. Agencies may adopt more costly 
alternatives to protect public health, safety and welfare, including 
workers' safety, however, if the benefits of the more costly 
alternative justify their costs, and the agency is acting to protect 
the interest of public health, safety or welfare that are within the 
scope of the statutory provisions that authorize the rulemaking.
  As a result, many workforce safety, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act 
and other public health, safety and welfare regulations on the books 
still could have been adopted under the bill, even if they were not the 
least costly alternatives.
  The difference is agencies would have done a better job of assessing 
whether those regulations really were the best ones to adopt and would 
have had a greater incentive to look harder for the alternatives that 
achieved the most benefits for the lesser costs.
  Further, the bill does not invite courts to immerse themselves in the 
weeds of whether agencies have satisfied every jot and tittle of how 
best to perform a cost-benefit analysis. Instead, it asks the courts to 
enforce the bill's least-cost standard, and allows the courts to defer 
to agency cost-benefit analyses that comply with guidelines from the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
  As the D.C. circuit most recently demonstrated in Business Round 
Table v. SEC, the courts know well how to enforce requirements that 
agencies weigh the economic impacts of regulation without immersing 
themselves in endless arguments over every fine point of economic 
analysis. So the bill will actually decrease litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is really just a litmus test for all Members 
of the House as to, not whether they want to implement regulations or 
not, but whether they want to do so in the least costly manner 
possible. Again, I don't see how anyone can rationally oppose the 
objective of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who is the

[[Page 18691]]

ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3010 because, especially in 
agriculture, we have been dealing with innumerable problems that have 
been brought by regulations that are not properly vetted and seem to be 
from people that have a lack of understanding of exactly what's going 
on in agriculture.
  And it seems like we have some of these bureaucrats that are working 
on these regulations that they've basically set up, you know, they've 
claimed there is threat of lawsuits or whatever; and the next thing you 
know, they're off doing regulations that have been kind of self-
fulfilling prophecies on their part.
  This legislation gives us an overhaul, I guess, for the first time in 
65 years, in the Administrative Procedures Act, to make sure that we 
have more openness, more transparency, more accountability in these 
regulations, more time, more analysis, more compilation on how these 
regulations are developed and how they can--how we can improve this so 
we can improve the people's confidence in the process, to try to make 
sure that we're taking into account the costs of what these regulations 
are going to place, not only on the businesses but, ultimately, on the 
consumers that are affected by this.
  In agriculture, we have all these things that are coming down that I 
think people have a lack of understanding of just exactly what the 
effect is going to be. A lot of these regulations are going to have the 
effect of significantly increasing food costs to consumers in this 
country, and I just think a lot of these urban folks have no idea what 
they're doing. And the next thing you know, once, if these regulations 
got in place, they'd be back in Congress looking for more help for SNAP 
and for other programs to try to pay for the increased food cost that 
was put on them by these regulations.
  The more we can open up this process, the more we can get people to 
understand the actual effect of these regulations and what they're 
going to accomplish if they're put into place, the better the situation 
is going to be.
  I think this is a good step in the right direction. Personally, I 
would probably go even further than what's in this bill, but it is 
probably what can be accomplished at this point.

                              {time}  1000

  I am very happy to be here today to support this effort, and I look 
forward to having a successful outcome.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The distinguished ranking member of Agriculture wasn't here when the 
ranking member, Mr. Miller of Education and Labor, was here talking 
about the agricultural problems and the problems that H.R. 3010 
presents to us.
  What I would like to just ask the gentleman, yesterday the Food and 
Drug Administration issued a recall of both grapes and tomatoes for 
salmonella contamination. Did the gentleman have some reservation or 
objection to this regulation that the FDA operated on?
  I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think it points out that the regulations we have in place are 
working.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. PETERSON. In agriculture we only have jurisdiction over meat and 
about 20 percent of the food safety is under the jurisdiction of the Ag 
Department. If the FDA was anywhere near as competent as the USDA is in 
terms of inspections, we wouldn't have these problems. You know, 
frankly, the FDA should not be regulating this, the Department of 
Agriculture should be regulating it.
  Mr. CONYERS. If you think that this bill should go further, then why 
would FDA need to have H.R. 3010 be made more likely to kill 
regulations that control jobs and health?
  Mr. PETERSON. We're talking about a bigger issue here.
  All this bill does is give folks a better chance to understand what's 
going on here. This whole food safety issue has been a big problem 
because people are off on tangents that don't have anything to do with 
reality. Hopefully with this new procedure, we're going to be able to 
more fully vet this so the public can understand what's going on here.
  Salmonella exists in all kinds of products. It's going to be there, 
it's always going to be there no matter what you do. What you have to 
do is have a regime in place so you can determine the salmonella before 
it gets into the food supply.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota for his comments.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), 
also a member of the Ag Committee.
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory 
Accountability Act of 2011.
  As a cosponsor of this legislation, I understand that this is not 
about eliminating existing regulations; it's about making sure that 
regulations do not eliminate the ability of businesses to thrive to 
create jobs in places like the San Joaquin Valley that I represent, 
especially during these difficult economic times.
  Many major regulations can cost upwards of $100 million dollars to 
the industries affected by the rule. But they also impact consumer 
costs as well. While business people in my district are carefully 
watching their bottom line, ill-advised regulations can hamper the 
ability to create jobs and get our economy going. So this legislation 
is also about jobs.
  This legislation ensures that regulations are fully vetted before 
they are put in place. Despite the best intentions, we often see 
bureaucrats proposing rules without any practical knowledge of how they 
will work in the real world. H.R. 3010 guarantees that the business 
communities, farmers in my district can know, when regulations are 
being proposed, that they can have a seat at the table to explain how 
it would affect their work and be implemented.
  This legislation, therefore, is also about transparency and 
accountability. Agencies would be required to provide information to 
the public about the potential economic impacts of the proposed 
regulations.
  As the President said this September in his jobs speech, we should 
have no more regulation than the health and safety and the security of 
the American people require. Every rule should meet that commonsense 
test.
  This legislation helps us ensure the executive branch regulations 
will meet that commonsense test. By modernizing our regulatory process, 
we can guarantee that regulations are enacted that truly are in the 
best interest of the public, the business, and the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, a ranking 
subcommittee member in Judiciary.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield to me for just a few seconds?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman from California tell me now or at 
some future time which health regulations he would like to get repealed 
or withdrawn?
  Mr. COSTA. I don't think that I can give you a specific on a health 
regulation. I think what we're really talking about here is the impact 
of risk assessment versus risk management to ensure that we provide the 
best protection for health and safety when we implement regulations.
  Mr. CONYERS. So you don't have any complaint against FDA at the 
present time?
  Mr. COSTA. The current proposed rules, I mean some work better than 
others. Some are implemented better than others.

[[Page 18692]]


  Mr. CONYERS. But you're okay with them?
  Mr. COSTA. I think the current point that you made earlier about the 
proposed issue with regards to certain commodities show that the 
current regulatory system is working.
  Mr. CONYERS. So you don't want to improve it?
  Mr. COSTA. No. I want to ensure that we meet good standards and good 
tests, and this legislation, I think, does that.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has reclaimed his time.
  Does the gentleman from Michigan now yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is now recognized for 1\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition 
to this bill, the Regulatory Accountability Act.
  Instead of creating jobs, the Tea Party Republicans are assaulting 
the very regulations that keep us safe and promote fairness to 
consumers. I'm disturbed by this assault on regulations that protect 
health, safety, and well-being, and the financial well-being of 99 
percent of Americans.
  This majority, the Tea Party Republicans who, having been elected as 
a result of all of the secret money received from the Wall Street 
corporations during the 2008 elections, beyond any reasonable doubt are 
now clearly doing the bidding of these Wall Street corporate interests. 
They're doing the bidding of them by this kind of legislation that 
would remove the kinds of regulations that protect the health, safety, 
and well-being of 99 percent of the American people.
  It's not fair. It's not right. No jobs are being created. This bill 
is a travesty.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Our troubled economy forces many Americans to tighten their financial 
belts as they enter this holiday season. It is especially frustrating 
that the typical American worked more than 2 months, about 77 days, 
this year to pay for the cost of government regulations alone.
  For the unemployed, the news is even worse. Official unemployment has 
hovered around 9 percent all year. When the unemployed and 
underemployed and those who no longer seek employment are counted, the 
effective unemployment rate reaches almost 16 percent.

                              {time}  1010

  But rather than add much-needed jobs to the economy, the Obama 
administration has only added job-killing regulations that burden 
businesses and stifle economic growth.
  The administration counted 410 new major rules in its regulatory 
agendas for 2010 and 2011. Mr. Chairman, that is four times the number 
of major rules than during the first 2 years of the previous 
administration. In addition, the White House has reported to Congress 
that, for most new major rules issued in 2010, the government failed to 
analyze both the costs and the benefits. Many more major regulations 
are now in the works, and there is no assurance that the administration 
will adequately consider their costs and benefits either.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act provides the cure for this epidemic 
of regulatory costs. It is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation 
that requires agencies to do a better job of determining whether new 
regulations are really needed; and when regulations are necessary, it 
requires agencies to find the lowest cost alternative to achieve its 
goals. In other words, you can still achieve the goals but in the least 
costly way possible.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act will not stop Federal agencies from 
issuing needed regulations, but it will stop them from imposing 
unjustified regulatory costs. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill, and I look forward to its final passage.
  With that, I yield to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the chairman for yielding to me because we want 
to acknowledge the committee's parliamentarian, Allison Halataei, on 
her last day of service to the committee.
  Allie has been an expert on House and committee rules, has ruled 
fairly on all matters of legislation that fall within the committee's 
jurisdiction, and has been valuable to all the members on both sides of 
the aisle. We've come to rely on her excellent judgment and experience.
  On behalf of the Democratic members of the committee, we wish her 
well in her future endeavors.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will add that 
Allie Halataei has also served us well on the Judiciary Committee for 6 
years. She has been on my personal staff for 2 additional years. She 
has also been a deputy chief of staff for the full Judiciary Committee 
in addition to having served previously on the Immigration 
Subcommittee.
  We value all of her expertise, her talents, her dedication, and her 
conscientiousness. All of those wonderful attributes are going to be 
missed, but we do wish her well in her next position.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of this 
important legislation that will ensure that regulations governing the 
businesses in our communities are fair and reasonable.
  H.R. 3010 will provide a number of benefits for businesses in our 
communities, while also protecting public health and safety. It ensures 
greater transparency in the regulatory process and greater scrutiny of 
the economic effect of regulation.
  We all know how regulations are implemented can have a significant 
impact on our communities. For example, in my home district, there is a 
utility company that owns a percentage of a power plant in New Mexico 
that is subject to a standard on regional haze. The state of New Mexico 
put together a plan to retrofit this power plant and others within the 
state to meet the clean air standards using one type of technology. In 
the meantime, the EPA also put together a plan to meet the exact same 
standard. However, EPA's plan uses a different kind of technology to 
meet this standard, one that costs ten times more. If this rule gets 
published, this plant will be required to use EPA's plan, ultimately 
costing each of my constituents up to 700 dollars over the life of this 
project to achieve the exact same standard that New Mexico's plan 
meets.
  Under H.R. 3010, nonsensical requirements like this cannot be made, 
because it forces the agency to use the least costly alternative to 
meeting a standard.
  While I do have significant concerns with how this bill is paid for, 
the importance of ensuring that regulations provide more benefit than 
burden to our citizens leads me to ultimately support it. However, 
should this bill pass the House today and the Senate consider it, I ask 
that the Senate change the pay for and ensure that no voters are 
disenfranchised in return for greater transparency in the regulatory 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ensure a 
more common sense, transparent and fair regulatory process.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3010

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Accountability 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 551 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) `major rule' means any rule that the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
     determines is likely to impose--
       ``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more, adjusted annually for inflation;
       ``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State,

[[Page 18693]]

     local, or tribal government agencies, or geographic regions;
       ``(C) 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
       ``(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the 
     economy;
       ``(16) `high-impact rule' means any rule that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs determines is likely to impose an annual cost on the 
     economy of $1,000,000,000 or more, adjusted annually for 
     inflation;
       ``(17) `guidance' means an agency statement of general 
     applicability and future effect, other than a regulatory 
     action, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory 
     or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or 
     regulatory issue;
       ``(18) `major guidance' means guidance that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs finds is likely to lead to--
       ``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more, adjusted annually for inflation;
       ``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, local or tribal 
     government agencies, or geographic regions;
       ``(C) 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
       ``(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the 
     economy;
       ``(19) the `Information Quality Act' means section 515 of 
     Public Law 106-554, the Treasury and General Government 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and guidelines 
     issued by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs or other agencies pursuant to the Act; and
       ``(20) the `Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' 
     means the office established under section 3503 of chapter 35 
     of title 44 and any successor to that office.''.

     SEC. 3. RULE MAKING.

       (a) Section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``(a) This section applies'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Applicability.--This section applies''.
       (b) Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking subsections (b) through (e) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Rule Making Considerations.--In a rule making, an 
     agency shall make all preliminary and final factual 
     determinations based on evidence and consider, in addition to 
     other applicable considerations, the following:
       ``(1) The legal authority under which a rule may be 
     proposed, including whether a rule making is required by 
     statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether 
     the agency has discretion to commence a rule making.
       ``(2) Other statutory considerations applicable to whether 
     the agency can or should propose a rule or undertake other 
     agency action.
       ``(3) The specific nature and significance of the problem 
     the agency may address with a rule (including the degree and 
     nature of risks the problem poses and the priority of 
     addressing those risks compared to other matters or 
     activities within the agency's jurisdiction), whether the 
     problem warrants new agency action, and the countervailing 
     risks that may be posed by alternatives for new agency 
     action.
       ``(4) Whether existing rules have created or contributed to 
     the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether 
     those rules could be amended or rescinded to address the 
     problem in whole or part.
       ``(5) Any reasonable alternatives for a new rule or other 
     response identified by the agency or interested persons, 
     including not only responses that mandate particular conduct 
     or manners of compliance, but also--
       ``(A) the alternative of no Federal response;
       ``(B) amending or rescinding existing rules;
       ``(C) potential regional, State, local, or tribal 
     regulatory action or other responses that could be taken in 
     lieu of agency action; and
       ``(D) potential responses that--
       ``(i) specify performance objectives rather than conduct or 
     manners of compliance;
       ``(ii) establish economic incentives to encourage desired 
     behavior;
       ``(iii) provide information upon which choices can be made 
     by the public; or
       ``(iv) incorporate other innovative alternatives rather 
     than agency actions that specify conduct or manners of 
     compliance.
       ``(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       ``(A) the potential costs and benefits associated with 
     potential alternative rules and other responses considered 
     under section 553(b)(5), including direct, indirect, and 
     cumulative costs and benefits and estimated impacts on jobs, 
     economic growth, innovation, and economic competitiveness;
       ``(B) means to increase the cost-effectiveness of any 
     Federal response; and
       ``(C) incentives for innovation, consistency, 
     predictability, lower costs of enforcement and compliance (to 
     government entities, regulated entities, and the public), and 
     flexibility.
       ``(c) Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Major 
     Rules, High-impact Rules, and Rules Involving Novel Legal or 
     Policy Issues.--In the case of a rule making for a major rule 
     or high-impact rule or a rule that involves a novel legal or 
     policy issue arising out of statutory mandates, not later 
     than 90 days before a notice of proposed rule making is 
     published in the Federal Register, an agency shall publish 
     advance notice of proposed rule making in the Federal 
     Register. In publishing such advance notice, the agency 
     shall--
       ``(1) include a written statement identifying, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(A) the nature and significance of the problem the agency 
     may address with a rule, including data and other evidence 
     and information on which the agency expects to rely for the 
     proposed rule;
       ``(B) the legal authority under which a rule may be 
     proposed, including whether a rule making is required by 
     statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether 
     the agency has discretion to commence a rule making;
       ``(C) preliminary information available to the agency 
     concerning the other considerations specified in subsection 
     (b); and
       ``(D) in the case of a rule that involves a novel legal or 
     policy issue arising out of statutory mandates, the nature of 
     and potential reasons to adopt the novel legal or policy 
     position upon which the agency may base a proposed rule;
       ``(2) solicit written data, views or argument from 
     interested persons concerning the information and issues 
     addressed in the advance notice; and
       ``(3) provide for a period of not fewer than 60 days for 
     interested persons to submit such written data, views, or 
     argument to the agency.
       ``(d) Notices of Proposed Rule Making; Determinations of 
     Other Agency Course.--(1) Before it determines to propose a 
     rule, and following completion of procedures under subsection 
     (c), if applicable, the agency shall consult with the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs. If the agency thereafter determines to propose a 
     rule, the agency shall publish a notice of proposed rule 
     making, which shall include--
       ``(A) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public 
     rule making proceedings;
       ``(B) reference to the legal authority under which the rule 
     is proposed;
       ``(C) the terms of the proposed rule;
       ``(D) a description of information known to the agency on 
     the subject and issues of the proposed rule, including but 
     not limited to--
       ``(i) a summary of information known to the agency 
     concerning the considerations specified in subsection (b);
       ``(ii) a summary of additional information the agency 
     provided to and obtained from interested persons under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(iii) a summary of any preliminary risk assessment or 
     regulatory impact analysis performed by the agency; and
       ``(iv) information specifically identifying all data, 
     studies, models, and other evidence or information considered 
     or used by the agency in connection with its determination to 
     propose the rule;
       ``(E)(i) a reasoned preliminary determination of need for 
     the rule based on the information described under 
     subparagraph (D); and
       ``(ii) an additional statement of whether a rule is 
     required by statute;
       ``(F) a reasoned preliminary determination that the 
     benefits of the proposed rule meet the relevant statutory 
     objectives and justify the costs of the proposed rule 
     (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6)), based on the information described under 
     subparagraph (D);
       ``(G) a discussion of--
       ``(i) the alternatives to the proposed rule, and other 
     alternative responses, considered by the agency under 
     subsection (b);
       ``(ii) the costs and benefits of those alternatives 
     (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6));
       ``(iii) whether those alternatives meet relevant statutory 
     objectives; and
       ``(iv) why the agency did not propose any of those 
     alternatives; and
       ``(H)(i) a statement of whether existing rules have created 
     or contributed to the problem the agency seeks to address 
     with the proposed rule; and
       ``(ii) if so, whether or not the agency proposes to amend 
     or rescind any such rules, and why.
     All information provided to or considered by the agency, and 
     steps to obtain information by the agency, in connection with 
     its determination to propose the rule, including any 
     preliminary risk assessment or regulatory impact analysis 
     prepared by the agency and all other information prepared or 
     described by the agency under subparagraph (D) and, at the 
     discretion of the President or the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, information 
     provided by that Office in consultations with the agency, 
     shall be placed in the docket for the proposed rule and made 
     accessible to the public by electronic means and otherwise 
     for the public's use when the notice of proposed rule making 
     is published.
       ``(2)(A) If the agency undertakes procedures under 
     subsection (c) and determines thereafter not to propose a 
     rule, the agency shall, following consultation with the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, publish a 
     notice of determination of other agency course. A notice of 
     determination of other agency course shall include 
     information required by paragraph (1)(D) to be included in a 
     notice of proposed rule making and a description of the 
     alternative response the agency determined to adopt.
       ``(B) If in its determination of other agency course the 
     agency makes a determination to amend or rescind an existing 
     rule, the agency need not undertake additional proceedings 
     under subsection (c) before it publishes a notice of proposed 
     rule making to amend or rescind the existing rule.


[[Page 18694]]


     All information provided to or considered by the agency, and 
     steps to obtain information by the agency, in connection with 
     its determination of other agency course, including but not 
     limited to any preliminary risk assessment or regulatory 
     impact analysis prepared by the agency and all other 
     information that would be required to be prepared or 
     described by the agency under paragraph (1)(D) if the agency 
     had determined to publish a notice of proposed rule making 
     and, at the discretion of the President or the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
     information provided by that Office in consultations with the 
     agency, shall be placed in the docket for the determination 
     and made accessible to the public by electronic means and 
     otherwise for the public's use when the notice of 
     determination is published.
       ``(3) After notice of proposed rule making required by this 
     section, the agency shall provide interested persons an 
     opportunity to participate in the rule making through 
     submission of written data, views, or arguments with or 
     without opportunity for oral presentation, except that--
       ``(A) if a hearing is required under paragraph (4)(B) or 
     subsection (e), opportunity for oral presentation shall be 
     provided pursuant to that requirement; or
       ``(B) when other than under subsection (e) of this section 
     rules are required by statute or at the discretion of the 
     agency to be made on the record after opportunity for an 
     agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 shall apply, and 
     paragraph (4), the requirements of subsection (e) to receive 
     comment outside of the procedures of sections 556 and 557, 
     and the petition procedures of subsection (e)(6) shall not 
     apply.

     The agency shall provide not fewer than 60 days for 
     interested persons to submit written data, views, or argument 
     (or 120 days in the case of a proposed major or high-impact 
     rule).
       ``(4)(A) Within 30 days of publication of notice of 
     proposed rule making, a member of the public may petition for 
     a hearing in accordance with section 556 to determine whether 
     any evidence or other information upon which the agency bases 
     the proposed rule fails to comply with the Information 
     Quality Act.
       ``(B)(i) The agency may, upon review of the petition, 
     determine without further process to exclude from the rule 
     making the evidence or other information that is the subject 
     of the petition and, if appropriate, withdraw the proposed 
     rule. The agency shall promptly publish any such 
     determination.
       ``(ii) If the agency does not resolve the petition under 
     the procedures of clause (i), it shall grant any such 
     petition that presents a prima facie case that evidence or 
     other information upon which the agency bases the proposed 
     rule fails to comply with the Information Quality Act, hold 
     the requested hearing not later than 30 days after receipt of 
     the petition, provide a reasonable opportunity for cross-
     examination at the hearing, and decide the issues presented 
     by the petition not later than 60 days after receipt of the 
     petition. The agency may deny any petition that it determines 
     does not present such a prima facie case.
       ``(C) There shall be no judicial review of the agency's 
     disposition of issues considered and decided or determined 
     under subparagraph (B)(ii) until judicial review of the 
     agency's final action. There shall be no judicial review of 
     an agency's determination to withdraw a proposed rule under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) on the basis of the petition.
       ``(D) Failure to petition for a hearing under this 
     paragraph shall not preclude judicial review of any claim 
     based on the Information Quality Act under chapter 7 of this 
     title.
       ``(e) Hearings for High-impact Rules.--Following notice of 
     a proposed rule making, receipt of comments on the proposed 
     rule, and any hearing held under subsection (d)(4), and 
     before adoption of any high-impact rule, the agency shall 
     hold a hearing in accordance with sections 556 and 557, 
     unless such hearing is waived by all participants in the rule 
     making other than the agency. The agency shall provide a 
     reasonable opportunity for cross-examination at such hearing. 
     The hearing shall be limited to the following issues of fact, 
     except that participants at the hearing other than the agency 
     may waive determination of any such issue:
       ``(1) Whether the agency's asserted factual predicate for 
     the rule is supported by the evidence.
       ``(2) Whether there is an alternative to the proposed rule 
     that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at a 
     lower cost (including all costs to be considered under 
     subsection (b)(6)) than the proposed rule.
       ``(3) If there is more than one alternative to the proposed 
     rule that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at 
     a lower cost than the proposed rule, which alternative would 
     achieve the relevant statutory objectives at the lowest cost.
       ``(4) Whether, if the agency proposes to adopt a rule that 
     is more costly than the least costly alternative that would 
     achieve the relevant statutory objectives (including all 
     costs to be considered under subsection (b)(6)), the 
     additional benefits of the more costly rule exceed the 
     additional costs of the more costly rule.
       ``(5) Whether the evidence and other information upon which 
     the agency bases the proposed rule meets the requirements of 
     the Information Quality Act.
       ``(6) Upon petition by an interested person who has 
     participated in the rule making, other issues relevant to the 
     rule making, unless the agency determines that consideration 
     of the issues at the hearing would not advance consideration 
     of the rule or would, in light of the nature of the need for 
     agency action, unreasonably delay completion of the rule 
     making. An agency shall grant or deny a petition under this 
     paragraph within 30 days of its receipt of the petition.

     No later than 45 days before any hearing held under this 
     subsection or sections 556 and 557, the agency shall publish 
     in the Federal Register a notice specifying the proposed rule 
     to be considered at such hearing, the issues to be considered 
     at the hearing, and the time and place for such hearing, 
     except that such notice may be issued not later than 15 days 
     before a hearing held under subsection (d)(4)(B).
       ``(f) Final Rules.--(1) The agency shall adopt a rule only 
     following consultation with the Administrator of the Office 
     of Information and Regulatory Affairs to facilitate 
     compliance with applicable rule making requirements.
       ``(2) The agency shall adopt a rule only on the basis of 
     the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, 
     economic, and other evidence and information concerning the 
     need for, consequences of, and alternatives to the rule.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the agency 
     shall adopt the least costly rule considered during the rule 
     making (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6)) that meets relevant statutory objectives.
       ``(B) The agency may adopt a rule that is more costly than 
     the least costly alternative that would achieve the relevant 
     statutory objectives only if the additional benefits of the 
     more costly rule justify its additional costs and only if the 
     agency explains its reason for doing so based on interests of 
     public health, safety or welfare that are clearly within the 
     scope of the statutory provision authorizing the rule.
       ``(4) When it adopts a final rule, the agency shall publish 
     a notice of final rule making. The notice shall include--
       ``(A) a concise, general statement of the rule's basis and 
     purpose;
       ``(B) the agency's reasoned final determination of need for 
     a rule to address the problem the agency seeks to address 
     with the rule, including a statement of whether a rule is 
     required by statute and a summary of any final risk 
     assessment or regulatory impact analysis prepared by the 
     agency;
       ``(C) the agency's reasoned final determination that the 
     benefits of the rule meet the relevant statutory objectives 
     and justify the rule's costs (including all costs to be 
     considered under subsection (b)(6));
       ``(D) the agency's reasoned final determination not to 
     adopt any of the alternatives to the proposed rule considered 
     by the agency during the rule making, including--
       ``(i) the agency's reasoned final determination that no 
     alternative considered achieved the relevant statutory 
     objectives with lower costs (including all costs to be 
     considered under subsection (b)(6)) than the rule; or
       ``(ii) the agency's reasoned determination that its 
     adoption of a more costly rule complies with subsection 
     (f)(3)(B);
       ``(E) the agency's reasoned final determination--
       ``(i) that existing rules have not created or contributed 
     to the problem the agency seeks to address with the rule; or
       ``(ii) that existing rules have created or contributed to 
     the problem the agency seeks to address with the rule, and, 
     if so--
       ``(I) why amendment or rescission of such existing rules is 
     not alone sufficient to respond to the problem; and
       ``(II) whether and how the agency intends to amend or 
     rescind the existing rule separate from adoption of the rule;
       ``(F) the agency's reasoned final determination that the 
     evidence and other information upon which the agency bases 
     the rule complies with the Information Quality Act; and
       ``(G)(i) for any major rule or high-impact rule, the 
     agency's plan for review of the rule no less than every ten 
     years to determine whether, based upon evidence, there 
     remains a need for the rule, whether the rule is in fact 
     achieving statutory objectives, whether the rule's benefits 
     continue to justify its costs, and whether the rule can be 
     modified or rescinded to reduce costs while continuing to 
     achieve statutory objectives.
       ``(ii) review of a rule under a plan required by clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph shall take into account the factors and 
     criteria set forth in subsections (b) through (f) of section 
     553 of this title.

     All information considered by the agency in connection with 
     its adoption of the rule, and, at the discretion of the 
     President or the Administrator of the Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs, information provided by that Office 
     in consultations with the agency, shall be placed in the 
     docket for the rule and made accessible to the public for the 
     public's use no later than when the rule is adopted.
       ``(g) Exceptions From Notice and Hearing Requirements.--(1) 
     Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, the 
     following do not apply to interpretive rules, general 
     statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, 
     procedure, or practice:
       ``(A) Subsections (c) through (e).
       ``(B) Paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (f).
       ``(C) Subparagraphs (B) through (H) of subsection (f)(4).
       ``(2)(A) When the agency for good cause, based upon 
     evidence, finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief 
     statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that 
     compliance with subsection (c), (d), or (e) or requirements 
     to render final determinations under subsection (f) of this 
     section before the issuance of an interim rule is 
     impracticable or contrary to the public

[[Page 18695]]

     interest, including interests of national security, such 
     subsections or requirements to render final determinations 
     shall not apply to the agency's adoption of an interim rule.
       ``(B) If, following compliance with subparagraph (A) of 
     this paragraph, the agency adopts an interim rule, it shall 
     commence proceedings that comply fully with subsections (d) 
     through (f) of this section immediately upon publication of 
     the interim rule, shall treat the publication of the interim 
     rule as publication of a notice of proposed rule making and 
     shall not be required to issue supplemental notice other than 
     to complete full compliance with subsection (d). No less than 
     270 days from publication of the interim rule (or 18 months 
     in the case of a major rule or high-impact rule), the agency 
     shall complete rule making under subsections (d) through (f) 
     of this subsection and take final action to adopt a final 
     rule or rescind the interim rule. If the agency fails to take 
     timely final action, the interim rule will cease to have the 
     effect of law.
       ``(C) Other than in cases involving interests of national 
     security, upon the agency's publication of an interim rule 
     without compliance with subsections (c), (d), or (e) or 
     requirements to render final determinations under subsection 
     (f) of this section, an interested party may seek immediate 
     judicial review under chapter 7 of this title of the agency's 
     determination to adopt such interim rule. The record on such 
     review shall include all documents and information considered 
     by the agency and any additional information presented by a 
     party that the court determines necessary to consider to 
     assure justice.
       ``(3) When the agency for good cause finds (and 
     incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons 
     therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public 
     procedure thereon are unnecessary, including because agency 
     rule making is undertaken only to correct a de minimis 
     technical or clerical error in a previously issued rule or 
     for other noncontroversial purposes, the agency may publish a 
     rule without compliance with subsections (c), (d), (e), or 
     (f)(1)-(3) and (f)(4)(B)-(F). If the agency receives 
     significant adverse comment within 60 days after publication 
     of the rule, it shall treat the notice of the rule as a 
     notice of proposed rule making and complete rule making in 
     compliance with subsections (d) and (f).
       ``(h) Additional Requirements for Hearings.--When a hearing 
     is required under subsection (e) or is otherwise required by 
     statute or at the agency's discretion before adoption of a 
     rule, the agency shall comply with the requirements of 
     sections 556 and 557 in addition to the requirements of 
     subsection (f) in adopting the rule and in providing notice 
     of the rule's adoption.
       ``(i) Date of Publication of Rule.--The required 
     publication or service of a substantive final or interim rule 
     shall be made not less than 30 days before the effective date 
     of the rule, except--
       ``(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an 
     exemption or relieves a restriction;
       ``(2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or
       ``(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 
     found and published with the rule.
       ``(j) Right to Petition.--Each agency shall give an 
     interested person the right to petition for the issuance, 
     amendment, or repeal of a rule.
       ``(k) Rule Making Guidelines.--(1)(A) The Administrator of 
     the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall 
     establish guidelines for the assessment, including 
     quantitative and qualitative assessment, of the costs and 
     benefits of proposed and final rules and other economic 
     issues or issues related to risk that are relevant to rule 
     making under this title. The rigor of cost-benefit analysis 
     required by such guidelines shall be commensurate, in the 
     Administrator's determination, with the economic impact of 
     the rule.
       ``(B) To ensure that agencies use the best available 
     techniques to quantify and evaluate anticipated present and 
     future benefits, costs, other economic issues, and risks as 
     accurately as possible, the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs shall regularly update 
     guidelines established under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall also issue guidelines to promote 
     coordination, simplification and harmonization of agency 
     rules during the rule making process and otherwise. Such 
     guidelines shall assure that each agency avoids regulations 
     that are inconsistent or incompatible with, or duplicative 
     of, its other regulations and those of other Federal agencies 
     and drafts its regulations to be simple and easy to 
     understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for 
     uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.
       ``(3) To ensure consistency in Federal rule making, the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs shall--
       ``(A) issue guidelines and otherwise take action to ensure 
     that rule makings conducted in whole or in part under 
     procedures specified in provisions of law other than those of 
     subchapter II of this title conform to the fullest extent 
     allowed by law with the procedures set forth in section 553 
     of this title; and
       ``(B) issue guidelines for the conduct of hearings under 
     subsections 553(d)(4) and 553(e) of this section, including 
     to assure a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination. 
     Each agency shall adopt regulations for the conduct of 
     hearings consistent with the guidelines issued under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(4) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall issue guidelines pursuant to the 
     Information Quality Act to apply in rule making proceedings 
     under sections 553, 556, and 557 of this title. In all cases, 
     such guidelines, and the Administrator's specific 
     determinations regarding agency compliance with such 
     guidelines, shall be entitled to judicial deference.
       ``(l) Inclusion in the Record of Certain Documents and 
     Information.--The agency shall include in the record for a 
     rule making, and shall make available by electronic means and 
     otherwise, all documents and information prepared or 
     considered by the agency during the proceeding, including, at 
     the discretion of the President or the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, documents and 
     information communicated by that Office during consultation 
     with the Agency.
       ``(m) Monetary Policy Exemption.--Nothing in subsection 
     (b)(6), subparagraphs (F) and (G) of subsection (d)(1), 
     subsection (e), subsection (f)(3), and subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D) of subsection (f)(5) shall apply to rule makings that 
     concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal 
     Open Market Committee.''.

     SEC. 4. AGENCY GUIDANCE; PROCEDURES TO ISSUE MAJOR GUIDANCE; 
                   PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE GUIDELINES FOR 
                   ISSUANCE OF GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 553a. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major 
       guidance; authority to issue guidelines for issuance of 
       guidance

       ``(a) Before issuing any major guidance, or guidance that 
     involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of 
     statutory mandates, an agency shall--
       ``(1) make and document a reasoned determination that--
       ``(A) assures that such guidance is understandable and 
     complies with relevant statutory objectives and regulatory 
     provisions (including any statutory deadlines for agency 
     action);
       ``(B) summarizes the evidence and data on which the agency 
     will base the guidance;
       ``(C) identifies the costs and benefits (including all 
     costs to be considered during a rule making under section 
     553(b) of this title) of conduct conforming to such guidance 
     and assures that such benefits justify such costs; and
       ``(D) describes alternatives to such guidance and their 
     costs and benefits (including all costs to be considered 
     during a rule making under section 553(b) of this title) and 
     explains why the agency rejected those alternatives; and
       ``(2) confer with the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs on the issuance of such 
     guidance to assure that the guidance is reasonable, 
     understandable, consistent with relevant statutory and 
     regulatory provisions and requirements or practices of other 
     agencies, does not produce costs that are unjustified by the 
     guidance's benefits, and is otherwise appropriate.

     Upon issuing major guidance, or guidance that involves a 
     novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory 
     mandates, the agency shall publish the documentation required 
     by subparagraph (1) by electronic means and otherwise.
       ``(b) Agency guidance--
       ``(1) is not legally binding and may not be relied upon by 
     an agency as legal grounds for agency action;
       ``(2) shall state in a plain, prominent and permanent 
     manner that it is not legally binding; and
       ``(3) shall, at the time it is issued or upon request, be 
     made available by the issuing agency to interested persons 
     and the public by electronic means and otherwise.

     Agencies shall avoid the issuance of guidance that is 
     inconsistent or incompatible with, or duplicative of, the 
     agency's governing statutes or regulations, with the goal of 
     minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation 
     arising from such uncertainty.
       ``(c) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall have authority to issue guidelines 
     for use by the agencies in the issuance of major guidance and 
     other guidance. Such guidelines shall assure that each agency 
     avoids issuing guidance documents that are inconsistent or 
     incompatible with, or duplicative of, the law, its other 
     regulations, or the regulations of other Federal agencies and 
     drafts its guidance documents to be simple and easy to 
     understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for 
     uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 553 the following new 
     item:

``553a. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major guidance; authority 
              to issue guidelines for issuance of guidance.''''.

     SEC. 5. HEARINGS; PRESIDING EMPLOYEES; POWERS AND DUTIES; 
                   BURDEN OF PROOF; EVIDENCE; RECORD AS BASIS OF 
                   DECISION.

       Section 556 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e)(1) The transcript of testimony and exhibits, together 
     with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, 
     constitutes the exclusive record for decision in accordance 
     with section 557 and shall be made available to the parties 
     and the public by electronic means and, upon payment of 
     lawfully prescribed costs, otherwise. When an

[[Page 18696]]

     agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact 
     not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is 
     entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the 
     contrary.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, in 
     a proceeding held under this section pursuant to section 
     553(d)(4) or 553(e), the record for decision shall also 
     include any information that is part of the record of 
     proceedings under section 553.
       ``(f) When an agency conducts rule making under this 
     section and section 557 directly after concluding proceedings 
     upon an advance notice of proposed rule making under section 
     553(c), the matters to be considered and determinations to be 
     made shall include, among other relevant matters and 
     determinations, the matters and determinations described in 
     subsections (b) and (f) of section 553.
       ``(g) Upon receipt of a petition for a hearing under this 
     section, the agency shall grant the petition in the case of 
     any major rule, unless the agency reasonably determines that 
     a hearing would not advance consideration of the rule or 
     would, in light of the need for agency action, unreasonably 
     delay completion of the rule making. The agency shall publish 
     its decision to grant or deny the petition when it renders 
     the decision, including an explanation of the grounds for 
     decision. The information contained in the petition shall in 
     all cases be included in the administrative record. This 
     subsection shall not apply to rule makings that concern 
     monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open 
     Market Committee.''.

     SEC. 6. ACTIONS REVIEWABLE.

       Section 704 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Agency action made'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Agency action made''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Denial by an 
     agency of a correction request or, where administrative 
     appeal is provided for, denial of an appeal, under an 
     administrative mechanism described in subsection (b)(2)(B) of 
     the Information Quality Act, or the failure of an agency 
     within 90 days to grant or deny such request or appeal, shall 
     be final action for purposes of this section.
       ``(b) Other than in cases involving interests of national 
     security, notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, 
     upon the agency's publication of an interim rule without 
     compliance with section 553(c), (d), or (e) or requirements 
     to render final determinations under subsection (f) of 
     section 553, an interested party may seek immediate judicial 
     review under this chapter of the agency's determination to 
     adopt such rule on an interim basis. Review shall be limited 
     to whether the agency abused its discretion to adopt the 
     interim rule without compliance with section 553(c), (d), or 
     (e) or without rendering final determinations under 
     subsection (f) of section 553.''.

     SEC. 7. SCOPE OF REVIEW.

       Section 706 of title 5, United States Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``To the extent necessary'' and inserting 
     ``(a) To the extent necessary'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A) of subsection (a) (as designated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section), by inserting after ``in 
     accordance with law'' the following: ``(including the 
     Information Quality Act)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The court shall not defer to the agency's--
       ``(1) interpretation of an agency rule if the agency did 
     not comply with the procedures of section 553 or sections 
     556-557 of chapter 5 of this title to issue the 
     interpretation;
       ``(2) determination of the costs and benefits or other 
     economic or risk assessment of the action, if the agency 
     failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and 
     assessments established by the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs under section 553(k);
       ``(3) determinations made in the adoption of an interim 
     rule; or
       ``(4) guidance.
       ``(c) The court shall review agency denials of petitions 
     under section 553(e)(6) or any other petition for a hearing 
     under sections 556 and 557 for abuse of agency discretion.''.

     SEC. 8. ADDED DEFINITION.

       Section 701(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end, 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) `substantial evidence' means such relevant evidence 
     as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 
     conclusion in light of the record considered as a whole, 
     taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts 
     from the weight of the evidence relied upon by the agency to 
     support its decision.''.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act to--
       (1) sections 553, 556, and 704 of title 5, United States 
     Code;
       (2) subsection (b) of section 701 of such title;
       (3) paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 706(b) of such title; 
     and
       (4) subsection (c) of section 706 of such title;

     shall not apply to any rule makings pending or completed on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 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 Ms. Moore

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-296.
  Ms. MOORE. 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 6, after line 20, insert the following and redesignate 
     provisions accordingly:
       ``(4) Whether the problem the agency may address with 
     agency action disproportionately impacts certain vulnerable 
     subpopulations including individuals whose income is below 
     200% of the poverty line, individuals who are aged 65 and 
     older, and individuals who are veterans, and whether that 
     impact would be mitigated through new agency action.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, my amendment to H.R. 3010 is quite simple. It 
would ensure that an executive agency takes into account the needs of 
our Nation's most vulnerable, at-risk subpopulations, including 
veterans, low-income individuals, and the elderly, when considering new 
action. This so-called Regulatory Accountability Act would undermine at 
least 25 health and safety rules, which would have a disparate impact 
on the subpopulations.
  The authors of this bill continue this sideshow by bringing bill 
after bill to this House floor, claiming that they will create jobs by 
limiting the size and scope and reach of government and by repealing 
regulations that help and protect millions of Americans--balancing 
profit over people. Like magicians, they try to convince the American 
public with sleight of hand and deception that the cost to industry far 
outweighs the cost of health and safety protections.
  Once we get past all of the flashing lights, smoke, and glitter, we 
see that this bill, like others, that we're considering today is just 
no different, Mr. Chair.
  H.R. 3010 would do far more than simply ``modify'' the executive 
rulemaking process. It would require agencies to adopt the least costly 
regulations--a race to the bottom--instead of taking the most 
protective steps necessary to ensure the health and safety of 
Americans, especially those who are most vulnerable. It would add 
dozens of new procedural hurdles without any promise of additional 
resources. It would tie up agency action for years when we know that so 
many Americans desperately need help right now.
  These tough economic times are hard for everyone, especially those 
who are disproportionately affected by the economic crisis. We no 
longer have times for tricks, illusions, or silly gags. Study after 
study shows us that low-income communities live in the most toxic areas 
of our country. We must stop this bribery, trickery, and we must come 
back to reality.
  We must agree that it is good policy for executive agencies to 
consider our Nation's veterans, who, according to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, face an 11.7 percent unemployment rate, substantially 
higher than the national average. We must consider the 
disproportionately damaging health effects that air pollutants have on 
our low-income communities, on people who can't afford to move to 
wealthier areas, as the EPA considers implementing provisions in the 
bipartisan Clean Air Act. We also must agree that the executive branch 
take into account the needs of our Nation's seniors, who have become 
the subject of a dangerous debate in Washington over the future of 
entitlement programs.
  It's time to put down the magic wands, to pick up our voting cards 
and support legislation that protects the least of these.

[[Page 18697]]

  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The 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 CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you.
  President Obama has really curtailed more regulations than George W. 
Bush, so it is really mistaken that this President has not taken into 
account the needs of industry; but I think that when you get to a point 
at which you just want to abolish all regulations in favor of the so-
called bottom line, then someone has to draw the line. I think that 
this amendment draws the line at subjecting those people who are 
particularly vulnerable--seniors, veterans, and those of low-income--to 
air pollutants.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  This amendment, regrettably, seeks special consideration in 
rulemaking for a handful of groups; but the bill seeks to declare no 
favorites and gives no special policy treatment to any group. Instead, 
the bill creates an even-handed procedural reform that benefits all 
groups with greater transparency, accountability, and public 
participation in rulemaking.
  Perhaps the amendment is motivated by a concern that regulatory 
outcomes not shortchange the needs of seniors, veterans, and lower 
income families; but the bill already assures that these groups and all 
others will obtain the protection they need.
  The bill always allows agencies to achieve the regulatory objectives 
that Congress has set. Generally, if an agency can reach the goal with 
a lower cost regulation, though, of course it should; but if a costlier 
regulation is needed to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, 
including protecting seniors, veterans, and low-income families, the 
agency can adopt that regulation.

                              {time}  1020

  The agency just needs to show that the benefits justify the 
additional costs and the interests protected fall within the scope of 
the statutory provision that authorizes the rule.
  In this reasonable, balanced way, the bill guarantees statutory 
objectives will be met while we at least achieve real regulatory cost 
control. That is a win/win solution for everyone in every group.
  The Federal Government does not always need to do something more 
costly for special groups. It needs to always do something more cost-
effective for everyone. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Olson

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-296.
  Mr. OLSON. 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 8, line 3, insert after ``estimated impacts on jobs'' 
     the following: ``(including an estimate of the net gain or 
     loss in domestic jobs)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Olson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment clarifies one of the provisions in H.R. 3010 regarding 
rulemaking.
  The bill before the House states that when making a rule, an agency 
shall consider potential costs and benefits associated with proposed 
rules, including direct, indirect, cumulative costs and benefits, and 
estimated impacts on American jobs.
  My commonsense amendment specifies that the agency proposing the rule 
shall, and this is a quote from the amendment, ``estimate the net gain 
or loss in domestic jobs'' in their jobs impact analysis.
  My amendment will ensure that the public has a full understanding of 
the real impact to American workers before the proposed rule becomes 
effective. At a time of record unemployment, we must properly balance 
Federal regulations to minimize job losses before these jobs leave our 
shores.
  This will not, will not, stop Federal agencies from issuing needed 
regulations, but it will stop them from imposing unjustified and 
unintended regulatory costs without informing the American people how 
these regulations will impact jobs right here in the United States of 
America.
  While regulations are necessary, when they are necessary my amendment 
requires agencies to find the lowest-cost alternative to achieve the 
regulatory goals.
  I thank my fellow Texan, Chairman Smith, for his support of my 
amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support it as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. My good friend from Texas has introduced an 
amendment that I wish all of us could have joined with, as well as Mr. 
Johnson's amendment that was not allowed in order.
  We've made a complaint not necessarily on one amendment but on this 
underlying bill. And the amendment now adds yet another analytical 
requirement to the already numerous analytical requirements of H.R. 
3010.
  I would have liked to have joined Mr. Olson on making this just a job 
creation amendment, or a job creation bill. But part of the bill's 
super mandate overrides existing statutes like the Clean Water Act, the 
Clean Air Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, all of which 
reflect bipartisan legislative agreement to prohibit or limit 
consideration of costs in the rulemaking process.
  While I certainly agree with the idea of net job creation, H.R. 3010 
does absolutely nothing to create jobs with or without the addition of 
this analytical requirement.
  We can't cure this bill, and we might have been able to do so with an 
amendment by Mr. Johnson that exempts all rules that result in job 
growth. After all, it was allowed for H.R. 527, the other bill that we 
are considering today. I don't know why we can't come together, as some 
would say, and put forward bipartisan amendments that talk about 
creating jobs.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from Houston, Texas.
  I wish this amendment was not necessary, but with the current 
administration, the regulatory environment has gotten out of control. 
The best example is the Environmental Protection Agency and all the 
rules and regulations they have imposed upon the oil and gas industry 
and the power industry in the State of Texas.
  The best example of that is testimony from the administrator herself 
right here on Capitol Hill. When asked if she can survey the sort of 
job loss and impact on jobs from the regulations, she said no, not our 
business.
  That's wrong. If the agency is going to propose changes to some 
regulatory rule, they need to let the American people how it's going to 
impact the jobs right here at home.
  Again, it's a commonsense amendment. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Olson).

[[Page 18698]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B 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 8, line 19, strike ``shall'' and insert ``may, if the 
     agency determines appropriate,''.

  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 wish today was spent really dealing with job creation rather than 
diminishing the social safety net for the American people, something 
that we fought long and hard for.
  But let me give you some good news. The unemployment has dropped to 
approximately 8.9 percent, I believe, or a little bit less. It means 
the country's economy is going in the right direction, and the time 
that we're spending on the floor on these bills is a job killer.
  We'd much rather have spent our time passing the American Jobs Act, 
putting money in investment and infrastructure, rehiring firefighters, 
teachers, and law enforcement officers, and certainly we don't need to 
jeopardize this little baby's future with thwarting the opportunity for 
making sure food safety regulations are unfettered on behalf of the 
American people.
  My amendment is a simple clarification. The way the rules exist today 
is that the agency, in its wisdom, thinking about the safety and 
security of the American people, food safety, the environment, clean 
air, clean water, has the right, the discretion to give preliminary 90-
day notice.
  What do we do in this bill? We demand that the agency give a 90-day 
notice in order to propose a rule, and prior to having it published in 
the Federal Register. My friends, there is no doubt that rulemaking is 
complex, but in many times rulemaking requires quick action. All my 
amendment does is put back in the discretion of the agency to determine 
whether they can have a 90-day notice.
  The GOP claims that slashing regulations is the way to create jobs. 
Well, let me tell you what President Reagan and what President G.H.W. 
Bush said. As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to 
significant job growth, Bruce Bartlett said in an interview, it's just 
nonsense, it's just made up.
  Bruce Bartlett was the economic adviser under Presidents Reagan and 
G.H.W. Bush. Indeed, as BLS data show, in 2010, only 0.3 percent of 
people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of government 
regulation, intervention. But I will tell you this, this little one's 
life will be in jeopardy because of the intrusive and excessive 60-step 
process that these legislative initiatives are requiring.

                              {time}  1030

  Someone would say hogwash. The GOP claim that there has been a 
tsunami of regulations under President Obama is also a myth. It is 
simply a myth.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The 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 CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me just expand on this point regarding 
President Obama.
  This administration has approved fewer regulations than the 
predecessor, George W. Bush, at this same point in their tenures. 
Furthermore, Bloomberg finds that the average annual cost of 
regulations under President Obama at about $7 billion to $10 billion is 
close to the average around the costs from 1981 to 2008.
  This GOP bill kills rulemaking in favor of special interests. Sixty 
new analytical steps, can you imagine? You will be bogged down spending 
money and using government time and using the taxpayers' dollars to 
keep from protecting them; to keep from protecting this innocent child; 
to keep from protecting children with asthma; to keep from protecting 
people who need to have clean water; to keep from protecting those who 
need to have, if you will, a food safety requirement that keeps them 
from being impacted by E. coli.
  How ``unsensible,'' if I can use a word in quotes, is that? As the 
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards says, which includes Consumer 
Federation of America, this bill will make it virtually impossible for 
Federal agencies to ensure that American families are protected from 
tainted food, unsafe drugs, predatory financial schemes, dirty air and 
water, and dangerous workplaces.
  Give us a break. Let us follow in the footsteps of President Bush, 
President Reagan, and our predecessor President Bush and realize that 
this regulatory scheme is broken.
  Pass the Jackson Lee amendment and save lives, and let's celebrate 
that unemployment is going down and find a way to create jobs.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 3010 the 
``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011,'' which would amend the 
Administrative Procedure Act. This bill would require all agencies to 
adopt the least costly rule by formally codifying the cost benefit 
analysis process. The bill also overrides existing statutory standards 
in laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act. In addition, this measure will 
significantly slow the regulatory process, increase costs, and burden 
an already taxed judicial system.
  My amendment would allow a federal agency to use their discretion to 
determine whether to provided advanced notice, not later than 90 days, 
of a proposed rule prior to it being published in the Federal Register. 
As it has not been found that agencies have been dilatory in using 
their discretion. And in fact, there are times when it would be 
unnecessary.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have provided no solid 
justification for the bill's inflexible mandate that would require an 
agency to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, ANPRM, as 
part of the rulemaking proceeding for any major rule or high-impact 
rule. Agencies are in the best position to be able to determine the 
relative benefits and burdens of utilizing ANPRMs. I ask will this new 
rule create jobs?
  As my Republican colleagues are often raising concerns about the 
never ending bureaucracy in Washington. This bill adds more than 60 new 
procedural and analytical requirements to the agency rulemaking 
process. This would include currently nonexempt rulemaking. In 
addition, the bill extends the timeframe required to complete legal 
consideration of an agency proposed rule. This measure is a blatant 
attempt to delay the rulemaking process and the final implementation of 
agency rules. Well if as many jobs were created as red tape will be 
created by this piece of legislation then every American would have a 
job and one waiting in reserve.
  This measure calls for Judicial Review of every significant Executive 
Branch activity and functions. I have been serving as member of this 
governing body since 1995, and oversight of the Executive Branch is 
exactly what Congress does. In fact, one of the primary functions of a 
Congressional Committee is to provide oversight.
  If the Judicial Branch were required to proactively approve every 
federal rule, it would be extremely time consuming. The Administrative 
agencies are made up of experts in their respective fields. Many of the 
regulations that administrative agencies enact are very specific and 
require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of certain 
issues. The time it would take members of the Judiciary to become 
adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal 
agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to 
effect the change that Americans want.
  As we consider this rule, it is important that we not forget that 
federal agencies have their own oversight process in place to ensure 
that proposed regulations are thoroughly vetted. For every proposed 
regulation, agencies are required to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemakings to the industry and market over which they regulate. Those 
entities then comment on the rules, and they go through many

[[Page 18699]]

rounds of changes before a final order is enacted.
  Rulemaking takes years, and input from all relevant stakeholders is 
regularly solicited and received. Delays during the rulemaking process 
are already created by stakeholders and other branches of government. 
The reality is that the rulemaking process is already hampered by those 
whose sole intent is to water down or prevent rules they oppose. 
Additional delays only hurt Americans.
  According to a recent report by the Public Citizen delays of OSHA 
regulations contributed to 100,000 work place injuries, 10,000 cases of 
work-related illness, and hundreds of workplace fatalities. 
Promulgating regulations save lives
  Furthermore, rules enacted by Federal agencies are subject to 
Congressional oversight and review, and must meet standards of Judicial 
review. Arguably, rules and regulation issued by Federal agencies go 
through just as much, if not more, review as bills considered and 
passed by this body.
  Implementing this rule would create an expanded use of formal 
rulemaking that will effectively prevent needed public health and 
safety rules, in addition to an expanded and less deferential judicial 
review process that will lead to endless litigation without enhancing 
due process. Instead of debating about oversight authority that 
Congress already has, we should be focusing on the issues that most 
concern the American people, particularly, creating jobs.
  Collectively, the procedural and analytical requirements added by 
this bill would be enormously burdensome. The task of deliberating on, 
seeking consensus on, and drafting the numerous recitals that would be 
added to the rulemaking process would draw heavily on agency 
resources--a matter that should be of special concern at the present 
moment, when agencies are facing and will continue to face severe 
budget pressures. Increasing the time needed to accomplish rulemaking 
would not only be costly but also would tend to leave stakeholders 
(including businesses large and small) less able to plan effectively 
for the future. Not only new regulations, but amendments or rescissions 
of rules could be deterred by the additional expense and complexity 
that would be added to the process.
  Enforcement of these requirements on judicial review is available to 
regulatory proponents and regulatory opponents alike, adding to the 
burden of defensive lawyering agencies must carry. Thus, both 
affirmative regulation and deregulation may be impeded. As our country 
rebounds from one of most severe economic downturns in our history, it 
is imperative that we make decisions that will enable our economy to 
grow and, most importantly, create jobs.
  We should be using our judgment in a manner that would create 
American jobs by comprehensively reforming our broken immigration 
system. We should be working to implement an orderly process for 
immigration that eases the burden on employers, improves documentation, 
and compliments our enforcement efforts to make them more effective.
  Healthy market competition not only protects consumers, but will help 
our economy to prosper. Congress should be examining the consolidation 
taking place in certain industries to ensure healthy competition is 
alive and thriving. America is a free enterprise society, and small 
businesses are part of the backbone of our economy, employing a vast 
portion of Americans. We should be ensuring that any consolidation 
taking place in the marketplace does not push out small businesses and 
render them unable to compete.
  In the last couple of years, some sweeping mergers and acquisitions 
have taken place. Just recently, it was reported that 500 jobs are 
being cut as a result of last year's United--Continental merger. As we 
face a high unemployment rate, and Americans struggle to make ends 
meet, every job counts. We should be investigating the outcomes of 
mergers such as United--Continental, amongst others, to ensure that no 
more precious jobs are being lost.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up 
here and emphasized the importance of jobs for American workers--
especially in the context of immigration debates. However, one of the 
largest contributors to the lack of employment opportunities here in 
American is the outsourcing of jobs to other countries where the labor 
is less expensive. We should be focusing our efforts on ways to return 
outsourced jobs to American soil.
  In addition to jobs, the safety of the American people should be a 
priority. We should be spending time ensuring our prisons are safe. 
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, federal prisons now house 
more convicted international and domestic terrorists than the 
Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. To ensure the safety and security of 
our prisons, the ratio of employees to inmates is key. Hiring freezes 
within the Federal Bureau of Prisons coupled with rising inmate 
populations has the potential to negatively affect this critical ratio, 
and therefore threaten the safety and security of our prisons. By 
addressing the employee to inmate ratio, we are securing our Nation and 
creating more jobs for America.
  Bottom line, the judicial branch has a large responsibility. They 
carry on their shoulders the needs of the American people. We should 
not further burden the Judiciary with the work that an entire branch of 
government has already been commissioned to do, especially since 
Congress still has oversight authority.
  For each one of us, the needs of the constituents in our districts 
should be our priority. The needs of the American people as a whole 
should be our priority. And for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment to H.R. 3010.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  One problem in rulemaking is the practice of agencies to negotiate 
regulations behind closed doors with a few interested parties, then 
propose and adopt a predetermined rule.
  To help cure this problem, the bill requires advanced notice of major 
and high-impact rules that agencies may propose. These are the rules 
that cost $100 million or $1 billion or more respectively.
  The advance notice requirement ensures that those who bear the costs 
of these high-cost regulations have an opportunity to shape agency 
decisions before they become entrenched in predetermined rulemaking 
proposals. It also dramatically increases the transparency of the most 
important agency rulemakings; and, of course, if emergency rules were 
needed, advance notice may be waived.
  The amendment, on the other hand, makes advance notice discretionary, 
not mandatory, with the agencies. That guarantees that advance notice 
will rarely be used. It eliminates much needed transparency, and it 
only helps those who negotiate rules behind closed doors, then ram 
deals through the rulemaking process, ignoring public comment.
  The amendment may arise from a concern that advance notice not unduly 
slow down emergency rules. If that is the case, there is no need for 
concern. Like the existing Administrative Procedure Act, the bill 
allows agencies to issue emergency rules before they complete ordinary 
procedure.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It hurts the bill. It 
hurts the process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
  It is the Chair's understanding that amendment No. 4 will not be 
offered.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-296.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. 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 34, insert after line 19 the following, and 
     redesignate provisions accordingly:

     SEC. 9. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES AND GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553a (as inserted by 
     section 4 of this Act) the following new section:

     ``Sec. 553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance

       ``Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as amended 
     by the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011, and section 
     553a shall not apply in the case of any proposed rule, final 
     rule, or guidance that relates to the safety of food, the 
     safety of the workplace, air quality, the safety of consumer 
     products, or water quality. Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 
     704, and 706, as in effect before the enactment

[[Page 18700]]

     of the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011, shall continue 
     to apply, after such enactment, to any such proposed rule, 
     final rule, or guidance, as appropriate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 553 the following new 
     item:

``553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  H.R. 3010, seductively titled the Regulatory Accountability Act, 
would block every single new or pending Federal regulation, including 
those regulations which Congress has already directed agencies to 
write. This bill would neuter the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms 
protecting consumers; it would block tougher food safety oversight 
responding to last year's salmonella outbreak; and it would gut public 
health laws, jeopardizing clean air and water and workplace safety. It 
would effectively repeal 25 separate public health, consumer 
protection, and environmental laws Congress has already passed. No 
wonder the Statement of Administration Policy noted that the President 
would veto the bill if passed.
  With this legislation, the House Republican leadership has now 
attempted to pass more than 170 pieces of legislation, riders and 
amendments to attack public health and the environment; but H.R. 3010's 
impacts would not stop here.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Securities and Exchange 
Commission would not be able to implement consumer protections mandated 
by law, including commonsense rules like prohibiting investment banks 
from betting against their own clients on the stock market. The EPA 
would not be able to complete the toxic air pollution control rule 
which Congress directed it to implement 21 years ago. Our regulatory 
system already is so slow that this critical public health standard, 
which would reduce mercury and arsenic pollution, has been taking since 
1990 to develop. Apparently taking two decades to limit mercury 
pollution is much too fast for the sponsors of this bill.
  This bill uses seemingly innocuous requirements to create a tangle of 
red tape so thick that it would be impossible for any Federal agency, 
frankly, to issue meaningful regulations ever again.
  This bill uses several clever provisions to create regulatory 
gridlock. The first seems harmless. It requires agencies to use the 
lowest-cost requirement when issuing regulations. It directs agencies 
to consider alternative regulatory approaches proposed by industry. 
This model emulates the structure of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 
which provides a case study for failed environmental legislation. Like 
this bill, the Toxic Substances Act requires regulations to adhere to 
the lowest-cost solution. What's wrong with that?
  For this reason, polluters have been successful in challenging almost 
every proposed regulation on the premise that there are lower-cost 
alternatives. For example, asbestos. Despite its well-documented health 
hazard as a known carcinogen, it's still legal to use asbestos in 
America unlike in 50 other advanced countries, because asbestos 
manufacturers challenged the EPA's ban on asbestos and won the case in 
court when they showed that prohibiting asbestos was not the lowest-
cost regulatory option.
  The Toxic Substances Act is so ineffective that in its 35 years, a 
mere five of 22,000 potentially toxic chemicals have actually been 
regulated under its authority. This bill would require regulatory 
agencies to analyze every single alternative proposed by industry--a 
Sisyphean task that would effectively preclude any new regulation from 
ever again being issued against recalcitrant polluters.
  The other clever provision of this bill which also appears innocuous 
is the requirement that agencies perform a cost-benefit analysis for 
every regulatory alternative, even spurious ones, proposed by industry. 
Of course, Congress wants agencies to consider both the cost and 
benefits of regulations. That's why agencies already do provide full 
cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations. Requiring agencies to 
waste time analyzing every, even spurious, industry alternatives 
indefinitely delays any additional regulation.
  There are only two differences between this bill and the majority's 
previous attacks on the environment. First, because of its broad scope, 
this bill would be more destructive; and, second, its clever language 
conceals how thoroughly it would eviscerate regulatory agencies.
  That is why I have introduced this amendment, Mr. Chairman, to exempt 
public health and safety laws from the purview of this bill. The 
Republican leadership claims it supports public health and safety. 
Well, let's give them the opportunity to prove it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to protect 
public health and safety. Without this change, this so-called 
Regulatory Accountability Act guts the important public health, safety, 
and consumer protection standards we have long counted on in this 
country; and it would, in fact, not hold industry accountable for any 
of its future actions.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. The amendment carves out of the bill essential 
sectors or regulation and guidance. These include all rules and 
guidance documents on food safety, workplace safety, consumer product 
safety, clean water, and clean air. In many cases, these are precisely 
the agency actions that impose the most cost without producing enough 
benefits. A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's 
recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired 
power plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion 
annually to achieve; at most, just $6 million in total mercury 
reduction benefits. That's a cost-to-benefit ratio of almost 1,200:1.
  Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the bill's 
provisions to prevent excessively costly rules like this. The bill 
always allows agencies to achieve the statutory objectives Congress has 
set. Those objectives include protection of food, workplace, and 
consumer safety, as well as of clean air and clean water. All the bill 
requires is that agencies consider the cost and benefits of regulatory 
alternatives and, wherever possible, adopt the least-cost regulation 
that achieves that goal.
  If a costlier rule's benefits justify its additional cost and the 
rule is needed to protect public health, safety, and welfare, the 
agency may adopt it. The agency just needs to show that the public 
health, safety, and welfare interest it seeks to protect are within the 
scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the regulation itself.
  That is balanced reform that protects public health, safety, and 
welfare and the American economy and the American taxpayers and the 
small business owners of America.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-296.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 18701]]

  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 34, insert after line 20 the following, and 
     redesignate provisions accordingly:

     SEC. 9. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES AND GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553a (as inserted by 
     section 4 of this Act) the following new section:

     ``Sec. 553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance

       ``Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as amended 
     by the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011, and section 
     553a shall not apply in the case of any proposed rule, final 
     rule, or guidance made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     under the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.). 
     Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as in effect 
     before the enactment of the the Regulatory Accountability Act 
     of 2011, shall apply to such proposed rules, final rules, or 
     guidance, as appropriate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 553 the following new 
     item:

``553b. Exemption for certain rules.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  My amendment would exempt rules proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission from the new impediments to the regulations in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, there they go again. The right-wing Republican House 
majority is practicing more voodoo economics. This time it's the belief 
that overregulation is the cause of our slow economic growth and high 
unemployment rate. There is no evidence to support this position--none. 
In actuality, according to the Economic Policy Institute, ``economy-
wide studies do not find a significant decline in employment from 
regulatory policies.'' And some regulations actually create jobs due to 
regulatory compliance.
  More broadly, findings from the Office of Management and Budget in 
both Republican and Democratic administrations show the benefits of 
regulations far outweigh their costs. Most recently, OMB found that the 
benefits from major rules issued between 2001 and 2010 yielded benefits 
ranging from $136 billion to $651 billion and imposed costs of between 
$44 billion and $62 billion.
  Despite these facts, the right-wing Republican House leadership 
presses ahead with what it calls regulatory reform. Today's bill, H.R. 
3010, in the name of so-called reform, adds over 60 new procedural and 
analytical hoops agencies and departments must jump through before a 
regulation can be issued. The result is to impede, obstruct, and delay 
the attempt of government to accomplish one of its most basics 
functions--protecting the health and welfare of our people.
  Not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public safety, 
health, and the environment, such as the Natural Resource Defense 
Council, Public Citizen, Defenders of Wildlife, and U.S. PIRG, oppose 
this bill. According to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which 
represents a coalition of many such groups, this bill ``will grind to a 
halt the rulemaking process'' and ``is nothing less than an attempt to 
roll back critical public safeguards and promote industry interests 
ahead of protecting American citizens.''
  Americans should rightfully be scared that this bill will put their 
health and safety at risk. One example that highlights this is the 
subject of this amendment--nuclear power. The risks and dangers of 
nuclear power were made all the more clear this year. In Japan, we all 
watched in horror when that country was devastated by a meltdown of the 
Fukushima nuclear power plant. We are now told that over 10 percent of 
the land of that country will be unusable for decades. Later, Virginia 
was struck by a relatively rare but strong earthquake felt up and down 
the eastern seaboard. It caused a nuclear power plant near the 
epicenter to have to go offline.
  Because of the catastrophes that can result from disasters, be they 
natural or manmade, at nuclear power plants, prevention of meltdowns is 
the key. That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 1242, the Nuclear Power 
Plant Safety Act of 2011, sponsored by Representative Markey, which is 
designed to help do that. Among other changes, it would require the NRC 
to impose rules requiring plants to upgrade to withstand severe events, 
like earthquakes, and to have enough backup power so as to avoid a 
meltdown for a significant length of time.
  The NRC must have the ability and flexibility to impose new 
regulations quickly to safeguard the health and well-being of 
Americans. Impeding the Nuclear Regulatory Agency's ability to regulate 
will not save one job, but it might cost millions of lives in the event 
of a disaster. Sadly, this bill makes the ability to regulate nuclear 
power plants all but impossible.
  For me, this concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant at 
Indian Point about which many people, including myself, have had 
concerns for years lies less than 40 miles from the center of New York 
City, in my district. There are 20 million people living within a 50-
mile radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the 
basis for the evacuation recommended after the Fukushima disaster. 
Indian Point sits near two earthquake fault lines and according to NRC 
is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience 
more damage due to an earthquake.
  To keep my constituents and, indeed, all Americans safe, I'm offering 
this amendment today. It would exempt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
from the onerous new requirements for rulemaking imposed by this bill. 
With this amendment, the NRC would have the ability to safeguard public 
health and safety as it should. We must pass this amendment so that 
rulemaking for nuclear disaster is not impeded.
  I urge the passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from New York 
have any time remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close; so I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the argument for this amendment is very 
simple. This bill would make it almost impossible--by putting 60 new 
requirements in the way of agencies to make new rules, would make it 
almost impossible for rulemaking and, in fact, especially for emergency 
or safety rulemaking in the event that we perceive the necessity for 
such a thing.
  At least for nuclear power plants, the potential for disaster, the 
potential for killing mass numbers of people, we have seen. We've seen 
it at Chernobyl. We've seen it at Three Mile Island. We've seen it at 
Fukushima. At least for that situation, allow the government rulemaking 
agency to continue to have the power to protect our people.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to continue to have the 
government have the power to protect our people. A vote against this 
amendment and for this bill is a vote to put the lives of all our 
people at risk and to prevent the government from protecting the lives 
of our people, and it would be almost an immoral vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The amendment creates a special carve-out from the legislation's 
requirements for regulations and guidance of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Regulation of the nuclear power industry, however, should 
go through the same rulemaking process as other regulations. In this 
way, all interested parties will have the best opportunity to test 
their assumptions about nuclear power and nuclear waste.

[[Page 18702]]

  Perhaps the amendment is motivated by a concern that the legislation 
could prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing emergency 
rules and guidance or rules that adequately protect public safety. That 
concern, however, is unfounded. The legislation preserves agencies' 
ability to make interim-final rules for ``good cause.'' This exception 
certainly would cover emergency rules from the Commission.
  The bill also allows agencies to adopt alternatives to least-cost 
regulations if interests of public health, safety, or welfare require 
costlier rules. Only two conditions need to be satisfied: First, the 
costlier rule must produce benefits that justify the additional cost; 
second, the benefits must serve public health, safety, or welfare 
interests within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes 
the regulation.

                              {time}  1050

  Surely the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and any other agency can 
adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare within those 
conditions.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-296.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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 34, insert after line 20 the following, and 
     redesignate provisions accordingly:

     SEC. 9. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES AND GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553a (as inserted by 
     section 4 of this Act) the following new section:

     ``Sec. 553b. Exemption for certain rules and guidance

       ``Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as amended 
     by the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011, and section 
     553a shall not apply in the case of any proposed rule, final 
     rule, or guidance made by the Secretary of Homeland Security. 
     Sections 551, 553, 556, 701(b), 704, and 706, as in effect 
     before the enactment of the the Regulatory Accountability Act 
     of 2011, shall apply to such proposed rules, final rules, or 
     guidance, as appropriate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 553 the following new 
     item:

``553b. Exemption for certain rules.''.

  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. I thank the chairman very much.
  I think it's important to reinforce to our colleagues that many of us 
are on the floor of the House this morning as these bills have come 
through the Judiciary Committee, and I am just struck by the fact that 
I'm trying to reflect on the vast reach that these bills have taken up. 
We even have another bill just like this next week. And I'm, for the 
life of me, trying to reflect on where the data is that these bills are 
going to create jobs or that there is a problem. And that is what the 
task of the Members of the United States Congress is. This body and the 
other body, we are to come as part of the people's House and solve 
problems.
  For example, I am going to be calling for hearings on the heinous 
actions of sexual abuse against our children in institutions such as 
Penn State and Syracuse and places around this country that are 
probably yet uncovered and yet undiscovered. That is a problem, our 
children being abused, sexually abused, and the vileness of the 
coverup.
  We're sent here to solve problems. And frankly, I am concerned that 
H.R. 3010 does not solve a problem. I'd rather be addressing the 
vileness of sexual abuse as an epidemic across this Nation. But today 
we are here with a regulatory bill and no evidence that anybody has 
been disturbed by the regulations that have been put in place to save 
the lives of the American people.
  So my amendment is a simple one again. Having been on Homeland 
Security since its origins--meaning the committee--and before the 
Department was even created as a member of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security, having gone to Ground Zero, and as I reflect seeing 
the smoke still billowing from the ashes and looking at the rescue and 
recovery teams--they had not yet stopped seeking to recover those who 
tragically were in the midst of this hellish quagmire of terrorism. How 
can you not see the reason in waiving this bill or exempting all rules 
promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security? It is the newest 
department. It has the greatest scrutiny in place for the kinds of 
regulations that are involved.
  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 being innovative in protecting our 
Nation. Don't stifle that. Don't block us from stopping Times Square 
bombers and shoe bombers and Christmas day bombers that would impact 
the American people. Don't stop us from helping the Coast Guard do its 
duty, dealing with the travails of the waterways of America, the many 
huge ports that would open their doors to heinous acts with cargo. 
That's what they're telling us to do by making sure homeland security, 
securing the Nation has to be subjected to these amendments.
  I know about the vulnerabilities in security firsthand. We see these 
all the time. There are 350 major ports. They need to do their work. 
They don't need to be stifled by a legislative scheme that puts in 
place 60 new provisions to get a regulation out. How insane.
  Help us secure America. I'm asking my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The 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 CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. What does my amendment do? It simply says 
that if it is a regulation dealing with the securing of the American 
people, it is exempted from 60 barriers, look-sees, delaying tactics, 
long-windedness that would prevent that regulation from coming through 
to help the likes of the Coast Guard do its job, Customs and Border 
Patrol do its job, ICE do its job, the TSA, dealing with aviation 
security, do its job.
  How clearer do we need to be? With cities and towns across the Nation 
facing threats indeed every day, ensuring the security of the homeland 
requires the interaction of multiple departments and agencies as well 
as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal and 
territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private 
sector. How in the world can we do our job and protect the American 
people? How can we provide small businesses with the opportunity for 
new technology procurement by layering and layering their ability to 
get this done?
  I ask my colleagues to stand with me in supporting the homeland and 
Homeland Security. Vote for the Jackson Lee amendment that exempts 
Homeland Security regulations. But once and for all, let's be 
bipartisan on securing and protecting the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 3010 the 
``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011,'' which would amend

[[Page 18703]]

the Administrative Procedure Act. This measure would require that all 
agencies default to the least costly rule unless it can demonstrate 
that the additional benefits of the more costly rule justify the 
additional costs, and the agency offers a public health, safety, 
environmental, or welfare justification clearly drawn from the 
authorizing statute.
  The Regulatory Accountablity Act of 2011 (RAA) formally codifies the 
cost-benefit analysis process. The bill overrides existing statutory 
standards in laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act. In addition, this measure will 
significantly slow the regulatory process, increase costs, and burden 
an already taxed judicial system.
  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. 3010 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 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 to 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 the 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 respond to a 
terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or 
a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak is crucial to the security of the 
American people.
  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 
challenges to 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 rule-making 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.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  This amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security 
from the bill's urgently needed rulemaking reforms. There is no good 
reason to provide that shield.
  For example, take the Department's rules to extend compliance 
deadlines for States to issue secure drivers' licenses under the Real 
ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent licenses to 
board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, the Department 
of Homeland Security continues to extend the deadline. Clearly, the 
Department of Homeland Security should not be exempt from the bill's 
provisions.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.

[[Page 18704]]




                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 112-296 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
  Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) 
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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 232, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 882]

                               AYES--187

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     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
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     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.
     Jones
     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
     Matheson
     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
     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
     Webster
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     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
     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
     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
     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 (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Braley (IA)
     Emerson
     Engel
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hanna
     Hartzler
     Labrador
     Paul
     Schilling
     Sessions
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1126

  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER and Mr. GOODLATTE changed their 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 882, 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 Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). 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 ayes 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 162, 
noes 250, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 883]

                               AYES--162

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

[[Page 18705]]


     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     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
     Schiff
     Schrader
     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
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--250

     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
     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
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     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
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     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
     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
     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
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Braley (IA)
     Clay
     Emerson
     Engel
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hanna
     Hartzler
     Johnson (GA)
     Labrador
     Paul
     Perlmutter
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Sessions
     Terry
     Waters
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1130

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 883, 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 Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes 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 242, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 884]

                               AYES--171

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     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
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     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
     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
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     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
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     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--242

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     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
     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

[[Page 18706]]


     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     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
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Berg
     Braley (IA)
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Honda
     Marchant
     Paul
     Perlmutter
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Schilling
     Sessions
     Sires
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1133

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 884, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 884, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes 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 174, 
noes 247, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 885]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     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
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     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
     Kinzinger (IL)
     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
     Schrader
     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--247

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     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
     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
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     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
     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
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Braley (IA)
     Emerson
     Engel
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Schilling
     Sessions
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1138

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 885, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''


          Amendment No. 7 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 175, 
noes 247, not voting 11, as follows:

[[Page 18707]]



                             [Roll No. 886]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     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
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     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
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     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--247

     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
     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
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     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
     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
     Perlmutter
     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
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Braley (IA)
     Emerson
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Schilling
     Sessions
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1142

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 886, 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. The question is on the committee 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. 
Bass of New Hampshire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, 
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. 3010) to reform the process by which Federal agencies 
analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents, 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 committee 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

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BOSWELL. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Boswell moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3010 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:

     SECTION __. GUARANTEEING THE LOWEST PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES 
                   FOR SENIORS.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     apply to new regulations or the revision of existing 
     regulations that reduce costs or increase coverage for 
     pharmaceuticals and other health services for seniors, or 
     efforts by the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, 
     Veterans Administration, and Defense to negotiate lower 
     prescription drug prices.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  My motion to recommit will provide both parties with the opportunity 
to come together to save hundreds of millions of dollars, rein in 
Federal spending, and support America's seniors, America's troops, and 
America's veterans.
  Let me be clear. The passage of this amendment will not prevent the 
passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will be 
incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.
  The amendment is direct and incredibly important. Simply put, it will 
prevent the underlying bill from creating regulatory hurdles for low-
cost drugs. Day in and day out, we talk about spending in this country 
and, particularly, in this Congress. Well, my

[[Page 18708]]

amendment gives the Chamber the chance to rein in one of the greatest 
culprits of our out-of-control spending--health care.
  Today, health care spending is more than 17 percent of our Nation's 
GDP, a number so massive that a 5-point reduction would save Americans 
$870 billion. Medicare part D covers 29.5 million Medicare 
beneficiaries. So how do we pay for prescription drugs? Eighty-three 
percent of Medicare part D funds come from our Nation's general 
revenue, and CBO has estimated that America's Medicare part D spending 
will total approximately $53 billion in 2012. That's quite an incentive 
to pay for drugs wisely and efficiently. This amendment helps us do 
just that.
  First, it protects current and future regulations that lower the cost 
of pharmaceuticals from being hindered by the underlying bill. We have 
done too much to support America's seniors and improve health care 
today to let regulations increase costs on our citizens or jeopardize 
their access to care.
  Nationwide, we have provided greater access to health services for 
Medicare beneficiaries and reduced their costs by allowing access to 
discounted drugs in Medicare part D. We sent checks to seniors this 
year who hit the part D doughnut hole, and we made a commitment to 
close it by 2020. We must continue to aid our seniors and reduce the 
cost of their medicine, but we must also reduce this cost for our 
Nation.
  The second part of the amendment ensures that this bill will not 
prevent the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, or Health and 
Human Services from negotiating for lower drug prices. Military health 
care covers the needs of more than 9 million individuals, ranging from 
Active Duty, their families, and veterans. Fortunately, the Secretaries 
of the Department of Defense and the VA have the authority to negotiate 
with companies on the price of drugs. We must protect their ability to 
serve the millions of needs of military members--Active Duty and 
retired--and their families who have served our Nation.
  Not only will this amendment defend the right of these agencies to 
ensure the best prices for our veterans and military families, it will 
protect any future provision that would provide the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services that same power to serve nearly 30 million Medicare 
part D beneficiaries and make medicine more affordable.
  Our constituents know what a driving force health costs are in our 
Nation's spending crisis. They feel it every day in their own homes and 
do all they can to get by.
  My own constituent, Jan, in Des Moines, recently wrote to tell me 
that she is ``concerned about the prices of medicine in our country, as 
it's often the biggest part of most citizens' out-of-pocket health care 
costs.''
  Echoing her concerns in a small town, Donna wrote, ``Countless 
Americans can't afford to buy medications in the U.S. and yet cannot 
afford to go without them.''
  These constituents and many more told me that if we could pass 
legislation to lower the cost of medicine that ``it would be extremely 
popular with your constituents, and it would be easy to garner 
bipartisan support.''
  I agree with my constituents. We should do this. I hope that you will 
support this, bring it back, and let's pass it, and let's be sure that 
we do the best we can to help our seniors, our military with military 
families, and our veterans.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I rise in opposition to the motion, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you.
  Eleven months ago on the floor of this House, the President of the 
United States promised the American people to ``reduce barriers to 
growth and investment. When we find rules that put an unnecessary 
burden on businesses, we will fix them.''
  Those are the words of the President of the United States in this 
body. I couldn't agree more. That very month, the President issued an 
Executive order that said, ``Our regulatory system must promote 
economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.''

                              {time}  1150

  I couldn't agree with the President more. The President said our 
regulatory system ``must identify and use the best, most innovative, 
and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends,'' and that it 
``must take into account benefits and costs.''
  I couldn't agree with the President more. He was right. The 
President's words were correct. He was right when he spoke here. When 
our regulatory system doesn't meet this standard--the President's 
supposed standard--it kills jobs, suppresses economic growth, and locks 
us ever further into stagnation.
  We see the evidence all around us. I recently hosted a jobs 
conference in Little Rock, in my district, at the President Clinton 
Library, which brought together a diverse group of over 60 private 
sector job creators. They were there to discuss how Federal policies 
affect their ability to succeed in the marketplace. The job creators 
that I heard from in Little Rock that day overwhelmingly agreed and 
were of one voice, almost unanimous: the Obama administration's over-
regulation of the private sector injects uncertainty into the market, 
which stifles job creation.
  One of my constituents, Susan Gunaca, a constituent of mine who owns 
a number of International House of Pancakes restaurants, said this, 
``As a business owner today, I am in a constant posture of defense.''
  Let me be more specific. Some of the jobs conference participants 
worked for companies that provide low-cost electricity to Arkansas 
families and businesses, but even their mission is under siege by the 
Obama administration's EPA, which is intent on forcing some power 
plants offline. The compressed timeline for many recently issued 
regulations requires too much in too short a timeframe for these 
electricity providers to comply.
  Sandra Hochstetter Byrd of the Arkansas Electric Cooperatives put it 
this way: ``As a for instance, the two most prominent rules, Utility 
MACT and the Clean Air Visibility Rule, could actually cause us to have 
to shut down our coal plants if they're not extended.'' If plants get 
shut down, electricity costs will go up and more jobs will be lost.
  We will not sit idly by and watch as this administration kills jobs 
in Arkansas or in any other State in this great country. The President 
hasn't been to Arkansas in a long, long time; but I would be happy to 
show him the impact of over-regulation firsthand.
  Republicans in Congress took the President at his word on regulatory 
reform to heart. We said, Hey, you're right, Mr. President. We're going 
to do something about it. We saw the evidence of overly burdensome 
regulations all around us. So what did we do? We got to work. We wrote 
a bill, the Regulatory Accountability Act, to reform a regulatory 
system so that it does exactly what the President said it should do.
  We built the bill on the very terms of President Obama's Executive 
order. It calls on agencies to consider the benefits and the costs 
before they regulate. It calls on agencies to use the best reasonably 
available science. It calls on agencies to ``use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.'' 
And it does so while ensuring that agencies will achieve every single 
statutory objective Congress sets before them.
  Recognizing the soundness and goodwill of this effort, several of our 
Democratic colleagues joined us to cosponsor this bill. A bipartisan 
group of Senators introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
  It's time to adopt this legislation. It's time for the President to 
match his actions to his words by signing this bill.
  But today, when this legislation comes before us, we hear a different 
story from too many on the other side of the aisle. When legislation 
comes to the floor of this House that will at one and the same time 
protect the American public and free business from unnecessary shackles 
on job creation, we hear a different tune.
  When it's time to really take action to help America's job creators, 
many of my colleagues

[[Page 18709]]

on the other side of the aisle run from their responsibilities to 
protect a regulatory status quo that is killing job creation as we 
speak. Mr. Speaker, if you want to know how to create jobs, then just 
ask job creators. If you want to know what's stifling job growth, ask 
the job creators. They know. It's their job to know. They will tell you 
to pass this bill now.
  When we have the opportunity to pass regulatory reform, President 
Obama shows his true colors: All talk, and no action. What a shame. He 
threatens to veto a bill that is built directly on the terms of his own 
executive order on regulation. He threatens to veto the very bill that 
would make his own words permanent for the benefit of the Nation.
  And this political motion to recommit is laid before us in an attempt 
to assure that the President doesn't have to do what he promised. And 
it makes no sense because our bill addresses the precise issue of 
reducing drug costs raised by the minority.
  Luckily, the majority of this House will vote to pass this bill. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, reject this motion to 
recommit, and show America that Congress can act for the good of job 
creators and the Americans who desperately want those jobs.
  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

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 233, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 887]

                               AYES--186

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     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
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     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
     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)
     Latham
     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
     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.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     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--233

     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     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)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     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
     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
     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
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     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

     Aderholt
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Braley (IA)
     Emerson
     Filner
     Franks (AZ)
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schilling
     Sessions
     Smith (NJ)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1212

  Mr. MATHESON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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 887, 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 ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, 
noes 167, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 888]

                               AYES--253

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     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
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes

[[Page 18710]]


     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 (FL)
     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
     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
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sewell
     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)

                               NOES--167

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     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
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Braley (IA)
     Carnahan
     Coble
     Emerson
     Filner
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schilling
     Sessions

                              {time}  1223

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, today, I was unable to vote due to a 
conflicting obligation in my district. Had I been present, I would have 
voted as follows:
  On rollcall No. 882, ``no''; on rollcall No. 883, ``no''; on rollcall 
No. 884, ``no''; on rollcall No. 885, ``no''; on rollcall No. 886, 
``no''; on rollcall No. 887, ``no''; on rollcall No. 888, ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 888, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly cast a vote in 
favor of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act. I would like the 
Record to reflect that my intent was to vote against this bill.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I regret missing floor votes on 
Friday, December 2, 2011. Had I registered my vote, I would have voted:
  ``Aye'' on rollcall 882, On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 3010--
Moore of Wisconsin Amendment;
  ``Aye'' on rollcall 883, On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 3010--
Jackson Lee of Texas Amendment;
  ``Aye'' on rollcall 884, On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 3010--
Connolly of Virginia Amendment;
  ``Aye'' on rollcall 885, On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 3010--
Nadler of New York Amendment;
  ``Aye'' on rollcall 886, On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 3010--
Jackson Lee of Texas Amendment;
  ``Aye'' on rollcall 887, On Motion to Recommitment with Instructions, 
Regulatory Accountability Act; and
  ``No'' on rollcall 888, On Passage Regulatory Accountability Act.

                          ____________________