[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3560-3566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 899, UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION 
                      AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 492

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 899) to provide for additional safeguards with 
     respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 492 provides for a structured rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act.
  Mr. Speaker, every year, bureaucrats in Washington impose thousands 
of regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. Those 
mandates can be costly, stretching city and State budgets and making it 
harder for American businesses to hire.
  The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, H.R. 899, 
will ensure that the people who write these regulations in Washington 
know exactly what they are asking the American people to pay and 
whether the costs of compliance might make it harder for family 
businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat.
  H.R. 899 will force Washington to think more carefully about 
regulatory costs before it passes them on to Americans. This bill is 
about transparency and accountability, and it is something Democrats 
and Republicans can all support.
  In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, 
legislation designed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing 
unfunded mandates onto State and local governments or private 
businesses without policymakers or the public knowing the costs of such 
policies.
  UMRA's main objective was to force the Federal Government to estimate 
how much unfunded mandates would cost local governments and businesses 
and rein in out-of-control mandates.
  UMRA ensured public awareness of the crushing financial burden of 
Federal mandates on employers and State and local governments. However, 
UMRA has not been amended since 1995, and some subtle changes are 
needed to preserve and improve on the act's initial purpose.
  UMRA was a good bill, but over time, some shortcomings became 
apparent such that the Clinton and, later, Obama administrations had 
written executive orders to fix the loopholes within it.
  As many of my colleagues can confirm, it takes a lot of creativity 
and hard work to pass legislation as a member of a minority party.
  When Democrats gained control of Congress back in 2007, I sat down 
with my staff to think about legislative ideas that could gain 
sufficient bipartisan support to clear a Democrat Congress. This bill 
is the result of those efforts.
  H.R. 899 has bipartisan DNA. It codifies those administrative fixes 
championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and promotes good government 
accountability and transparency.
  As a testament to this fact, the bill is cosponsored by three of my 
Democrat colleagues here in the House: Representatives Mike McIntyre, 
Collin Peterson, and Loretta Sanchez.
  I owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts in promoting this 
commonsense bill.
  I am especially grateful to Representative James Lankford, a 
Republican cosponsor of this bill, who has worked tirelessly to promote 
its passage here in the House. We wouldn't be here today without his 
efforts.
  A common refrain in this business is that nobody wants to see how the 
sausage is made, meaning that the process of drafting and passing 
legislation is so ugly that it would repulse people. In this case, I 
disagree.
  I am extremely proud of this bill and extremely proud of the process 
by which it has been advanced in the House. It has been a pleasure to 
work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure, and 
I appreciate their support and counsel.
  The Unfunded Mandates Reform and Transparency Act of 1995 was a model 
for bipartisanship, and my hope is that my bill leaves a similar 
legacy.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 3561]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my friend, Ms. Foxx, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we continue down this path of considering bills that are 
going nowhere. I sincerely wish my friends on the other side of the 
aisle would stop this Conservative merry-go-round.
  The majority leader called this week ``stop government abuse week.'' 
Abuse? Really?
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to ignore 
the plight of middle class and working poor Americans, immigrants 
hoping for a better life for their families, and denying the undeniable 
impact of climate change, just to name a few.
  This is even after shutting down the government for purely political 
purposes and playing a game of chicken with the debt limit; and yet, my 
Republican friends are calling routine government work ``abuse.'' That 
seems like a stretch to me.
  Abuse is when underregulated industries spill unknown chemicals into 
the West Virginia water supply. Abuse is when coal ash pours into the 
waters of North Carolina, when Wall Street bankers crash our economy 
after taking advantage of underfunded and overworked regulators; that 
is exactly the kind of abuse that the government needs to stop.
  You want to talk about abuse? Let's talk about today's measure.
  This bill will not make the regulatory process more balanced or 
transparent. It will strangle it in red tape. It will not make 
rulemaking more fair. It will tip the scales in favor of businesses 
with the most resources.
  Under this measure, improving access to health care and restraining 
the financial institutions that have unleashed havoc on our economy 
will become even more difficult.
  It is nothing more than poorly disguised political fodder aimed at 
stymieing the executive branch's rulemaking power in favor of some 
corporate interests that run amuck on the environment and American 
workers.
  Most egregious is the requirement for agencies to provide the private 
sector early consultation on major rules.
  This would give well-funded industry an unfair advantage not afforded 
to the general public and other stakeholders like public interest, 
taxpayer, and environmental groups.
  Clearly, the interest in amending UMRA only extends to certain 
privileged parties.
  If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to see what happens 
when you allow private interests to run rampant without any government 
regulations, they need only look to the smog-filled skies above China.
  This bill also politicizes independent agencies designed to protect 
the rights of hardworking Americans. The Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, Securities Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Board, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, as well as the Federal 
Communications Commission--I might add they kind of left out the 
Federal Reserve for some reason I don't understand--but all of those 
other agencies will all have to answer to the whims of politics.
  It also forces agencies to choose the cheapest regulatory option over 
the best. This is legislating the answer to the same kind of question 
that a homeowner has to decide when hiring a contractor: Do you want it 
done cheap, or do you want it done right?
  Look, I get it. I understand where we are in the Congressional cycle; 
but I think that it is unfortunate that my friends across the aisle 
would rather score political points and write bumper stickers than 
actually legislate.
  While I think it is a good thing that most of these partisan measures 
will never go anywhere, I can't help but point out that we should be 
making better use of our limited time here.
  We should be raising the minimum wage in order to give millions of 
hardworking Americans the pay they have earned.
  Nearly 5 years have passed since the last increase in the Federal 
minimum wage.

                              {time}  1645

  Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker makes less than $16,000 
per year, which is below the poverty line for a family of two or more.
  This is unacceptable. It is time for Republicans to end their 
relentless obstruction and to join Democrats in an effort to provide 
for the middle class.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I really respect and appreciate my colleague from 
Florida, but there is nothing in this bill that would stop the 
development of rules and regulations by the executive branch, 
absolutely nothing. All we want to do is make sure that the cost of 
those rules and regulations is totally transparent.
  Also, I appreciate my colleague's saying that we shouldn't be passing 
bumper sticker bills. We joked about this bill. The title for it, if 
you abbreviate it, is ``UMITA.'' That anagram hardly comes trippingly 
off the tongue, and it really wouldn't make much of a bumper sticker 
for us.
  He also indicates that this bill is going to be dead on arrival in 
the Senate, so we should just give our attention to something else. I 
know my colleague knows this: the House of Representatives is mentioned 
very first in the Constitution. I believe the Founders intended for us 
to do our job and to do it well here. We shouldn't be thinking ``it is 
my way or the highway.'' This is a bill that has been cosponsored by 
Democrats, and I believe it will get a lot of Democrat votes. The logic 
from my colleague is that because this House is predominantly 
Republican that we should at the outset just acquiesce to the Democrat-
led Senate or do nothing at all, but that is not how the legislative 
process works. There has to be a give and take.
  I believe the House will pass this legislation tomorrow, and if the 
Senate wants to change it and send it back, fine--we will work it out--
because that is our job, and that is the way it works, but I reject the 
notion that the Senate will not act on this bill. As I said, it is not 
a Republican bill; it is a bipartisan bill. It has Republican and 
Democrat cosponsors. My conversation with our Senate colleagues 
suggests this bill could clear the Senate and be signed into law by the 
President--this President.
  Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that, last year, the President 
signed 76 laws--64 of those came from the House of Representatives and 
only 12 from the Senate, if I am accurate. If not, I will correct the 
Record. It is wrong for us to say we shouldn't be passing bills in the 
House because anything sponsored by a Republican will go nowhere in the 
Senate since the Democrats control it, because the evidence from last 
year, obviously, disproves that.
  Mr. Speaker, since the 1995 passage of UMRA, experts across the 
political spectrum agree that the bill has led to the generation of 
important information about the potential impacts of mandates proposed 
in legislation and regulations. However, since its inception, there 
have been very few revisions to the law while various exclusions and 
exceptions have cropped up, creating loopholes limiting the act's 
coverage.
  H.R. 899 builds on the success of UMRA by drawing upon executive 
orders enacted by the last two Democrat Presidents to close loopholes, 
streamline the cost-reporting process, and clarify the responsibilities 
of those in charge with complying with these requirements.
  Independent regulatory agencies like the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal 
Communications Commission are currently exempted from UMRA. H.R. 899 
will require even these independent regulatory agencies to analyze the 
costs of their proposed mandates before they are imposed on the public.
  H.R. 899 would also treat ``changes to conditions of grant aid'' as 
mandates, triggering an UMRA cost analysis. Legislation or regulations 
that force States or localities to make changes in order to qualify for 
Federal grant aid would no longer be exempt from scrutiny.

[[Page 3562]]

  H.R. 899 will guarantee the public always has the opportunity to 
weigh in on regulations. Whereas UMRA only triggered cost analyses for 
regulations that were publicly announced through a ``notice of proposed 
rulemaking,'' this bill will require all regulations, whether a notice 
of proposed rulemaking was issued or not, to complete cost analyses.
  H.R. 899 will also equip Congress and the American people with better 
tools to determine the true cost of regulations. Analyses required by 
H.R. 899 will have to factor in real-world consequences, such as lost 
business profits, costs passed on to consumers, and changed behavior 
costs when considering the bottom line impact of Federal mandates.
  Finally, H.R. 899 will ensure government is held accountable for 
following these rules. If the requirements set forth by UMRA and UMITA 
are not met, a judicial stay may be placed upon regulations.
  This legislation is purely about good government. It is about being 
open and honest about the cost of regulations.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would advise my good friend from North 
Carolina that I have no further requests for time and that I am 
prepared to close or to reserve as she sees fit.
  Mr. Speaker, does my colleague want me to go forward and close or 
does she want me to reserve?
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we are not quite ready to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, according to a report issued by the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, the number of economically significant 
rules in the pipeline, which are those that could cost $100 million or 
more annually, has increased by more than 137 percent over the past 
decade.
  Section 12 of my bill responds to such concerns by requiring Federal 
agencies to conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal 
regulation at the request of a committee chairman or ranking minority 
member. The retrospective analysis submitted to the requesting member 
and to Congress is to include:
  One, a copy of the Federal regulation;
  Two, the continued need for the Federal regulation;
  Three, the nature of comments or complaints received concerning the 
Federal regulation;
  Four, the extent to which the mandate may duplicate another Federal 
regulation;
  Five, the degree to which technology or economic conditions have 
changed in the area affecting the Federal regulation;
  Six, an analysis of the retrospective costs and benefits of the 
Federal regulation that considers studies done outside the government; 
and
  Seven, the history of legal challenges to the Federal regulation.
  Since the duty to promote public accountability and transparency in 
Federal regulatory policy is endless, this provision builds on the 
strengths of UMRA by helping ensure ongoing compliance with legislative 
intent.
  This kind of ongoing monitoring, identified as a priority by section 
5 of Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton, and by section 
6 of Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama, is critical for 
adapting to changing circumstances that shaped initial UMRA cost 
estimates.
  This helps ensure a fresh look at regulations to make certain they 
remain consistent with their initial purpose and have not become overly 
burdensome, outdated, or unnecessary. This is just one of many 
bipartisan initiatives contained in my bill that further underscores 
the need for my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, section 3 of my bill has received praise from State and 
local government advocacy groups as it would allow a committee chairman 
or ranking member to request that the Congressional Budget Office 
perform an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a 
bill or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes 
to a condition of Federal assistance being imposed on any respective 
participating State, local or tribal government.
  The purpose of this provision is to highlight costs the Federal 
Government is passing along to State and local governments that would 
otherwise remain hidden but borne by taxpayers regardless of which 
governmental entity is taxing them.
  CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin's statement before the Committee on 
Government Reform on March 8, 2005, speaks further to this issue, 
saying:

       According to UMRA, the conditions attached to most forms of 
     Federal aid, including most grant programs, are not mandates. 
     Yet complying with such conditions can sometimes be 
     burdensome. In particular, States consider new conditions on 
     existing grant programs to be duties not unlike mandates. Two 
     often-cited examples of such conditions are the requirements 
     for receiving Federal funding under the No Child Left Behind 
     Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 
     Those laws require school districts to undertake many 
     activities, including, respectively, designing and 
     implementing Statewide achievement tests and preparing 
     individualized education plans for disabled children, but 
     only if they wish to receive certain Federal education grant 
     funds.

  In other words, these mandates escape UMRA's scrutiny because current 
law doesn't define this type of cost shifting as a ``mandate.'' My bill 
closes this loophole. The landmark Supreme Court decision, the National 
Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, hinged, in part, on 
this very issue.
  Although the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion was not 
technically considered a ``mandate'' under UMRA, it required States to 
dramatically expand the program or risk losing all funding. For this 
reason, the Supreme Court ultimately deemed this provision 
unconstitutional.
  Justice Roberts wrote that this portion of the Affordable Care Act 
violated the Constitution because:

       Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate 
     according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States 
     grants and require the States to comply with accompanying 
     conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether 
     to accept the offer. The States were given no such choice in 
     this case. They must either accept a basic change in the 
     nature of Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding.

  In this way, the Affordable Care Act provides a contemporary, salient 
case study in how important it is for legislators and the public to 
have access to critical information concerning the costs of Federal 
decrees.
  My bill will put this important information in the hands of Congress 
and the American people. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  With that, I would be prepared to close if the gentleman from Florida 
is prepared, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentlelady.
  I indicated I was prepared to close, but I have been advised that we 
need to occupy a little time as well. So I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and we will try to be slow about it.
  Mr. Speaker, in this particular legislation, the minority views that 
were developed allow, among other things, the following:
  The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act would be an 
assault on health, safety, and environmental protections. This 
legislation would erect new barriers to slow down the regulatory 
process, and it would give corporations an unfair advantage in the 
regulatory process;
  Section 5 of the bill would repeal language that excludes independent 
regulatory agencies from the reporting requirements of the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act, with the exception of the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve and the Federal Open Market Committee. I spoke to that 
earlier. I found that passage strange.

                              {time}  1700

  The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for overseeing the 
UMRA process. Since the independent agencies would be under the 
direction of OMB for purposes of UMRA compliance, this could compromise 
the independence of those agencies.

[[Page 3563]]

  Section 7 of H.R. 899 would create a new point of order in the House 
of Representatives for legislation containing an unfunded mandate, 
making it more difficult to enact legislation.
  Section 8 would incorporate a cost-benefit requirement from Executive 
Order 12866, but it would not include language from the same executive 
order directing agencies to perform these assessments to the extent 
feasible.
  Section 10 would require agencies to provide impacted parties in the 
private sector--but not other stakeholders--with an advanced 
opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations. It would require 
agencies to conduct consultations with private sector businesses as 
early as possible, before the issuance of a notice of proposed 
rulemaking. Expanding this consultation requirement only to the private 
sector could allow businesses to have an advantage over other 
stakeholders, as I mentioned previously, such as taxpayers and 
environmental groups, with reference to the development of regulatory 
proposals.
  During consideration of this bill by the committee, one of the 
Members offered an amendment that stated that any opportunities or 
rights afforded to a corporation under this section shall also be 
afforded to any interested individual. The amendment was rejected.
  My good friend on the other side mentioned the fact that I pointed 
out that we continue to have one House legislation that goes nowhere in 
the Senate. And she pointed correctly to the fact--and I stand with her 
if it needs to be corrected--that there were 76 measures that reached 
the President's desk, and that 64 of them came out of the House of 
Representatives. Not knowing all of the statistical imperatives, my 
belief would be that of that 64 that came out of House of 
Representatives, a substantial number of them had companion 
legislation. I questioned whether or not this particular measure that 
we are addressing today has companion legislation in the Senate, and 
that is why I feel that it is not going to go anywhere.
  Listen, one side is arguing that we need to start the 2014 election 
right now and don't do anything else that is going to allow for both 
bodies--it is true, as my colleague said, that the Constitution 
mentions the House of Representatives first, but it does not give the 
House of Representatives autonomy in the sense that they, and they 
alone, can pass legislation. So there is a requirement here that has 
not been being met, and that is that the Senate and House confer on 
matters of legislation and then offer it up to the executive branch.
  We seem to have circumvented that process. And what we are doing, 
rather than pass, or at least address--I am fascinated by the fact that 
I don't believe my colleagues have the courage of their convictions. If 
we were to put a flood insurance measure on the floor not on 
suspension, I doubt very seriously that it would not pass. It will pass 
if it were to come to the floor that way.
  I believe that if we offer up a reasonable minimum wage, I don't 
think anybody in this country can say that $16,000 for a family of two 
or more people is sufficient in order for them to be able to meet 
requisites having to do with food and rent alone, let alone educating 
their children or providing daycare.
  I don't think anybody really is against those who paid into the 
employment system receiving unemployment compensation, and yet we find 
ourselves here repeatedly addressing a significant number of matters.
  Someone wrote the other day, if they got a stain on their tie, it 
would be because of ObamaCare. My goodness gracious, people, we are a 
legislative body. We could be about the business of serious 
legislating. That kind of legislating would require, among other 
things, not just bipartisan activity as this legislation has manifested 
itself as being bipartisan, but it would allow that we would really sit 
down and talk through the things that are needed in this country.
  There is nobody around that doesn't believe that we have bridges that 
are in disrepair. I haven't found anyone that said that if we invested 
in infrastructure, that it would not create more jobs in this country. 
The people want us to do this, and not to do one-sided, one-way 
measures that are not going to go anywhere anytime soon.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle. I frankly don't think there is much more serious legislation 
around here than this piece, as I said earlier. UMITA doesn't exactly 
come trippingly off the tongue, and it isn't the most scintillating 
legislation out there, but it has great bipartisan support, which is 
what my colleague said we should be doing. So I am curious about his 
going off talking about a lot of other things other than this.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, that multiple provisions in my bill, 
including sections 8 and 9, would codify general principles of good 
government embodied in President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 and 
President Obama's Executive Order 13563.
  Section 8 closes a blatant, often exploited loophole inconsistent 
with legislative intent and the spirit of the law. Again, I think this 
legislation is doing exactly what the Congress should be doing, and 
that is sticking with legislative intent and making sure that we are 
looking after the fact that the laws we pass are adhered to.
  Since title II of UMRA says that agencies must develop a written 
statement describing the effects of their regulations on State, local, 
and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, ``unless 
otherwise prohibited by law,'' some agencies have concluded that 
general statutory language limiting the consideration of economic costs 
in setting regulations ``prohibits'' them from preparing a written 
statement evaluating the non-cost elements.
  Reasserting legislative intent, this section of my bill prevents this 
loophole from being exploited for purposes of ignoring UMRA 
requirements by clarifying that agencies must conduct UMRA analysis 
unless a law ``expressly'' prohibits them from doing so.
  This simple wording change makes a world of difference by clarifying 
that agencies must conduct UMRA analyses unless a law ``expressly'' 
prohibits the disclosure.
  Another way UMRA's cost disclosure requirements have been exploited 
by ambitious rulemakers is by deeming a proposal an emergency and 
thereby forgoing the notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPRM, process, 
which is the avenue through which the public weighs in on proposed 
regulation.
  Without compromising the ability to issue mandates in emergency 
scenarios, section 9 of the underlining bill removes the perverse 
incentive for agencies to forego NPRMs by requiring them to fulfill 
UMRA cost disclosure requirements within 6 months of issuing the urgent 
decree.
  Modest bipartisan provisions such as these highlight additional 
reasons for my colleague to support the rule and underlying bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I am 
prepared to close if the gentleman from Florida is prepared.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I will insert in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, 
and I will only lift one paragraph, and that is the last paragraph and 
sentence.
  ``H.R. 899 would unnecessarily add to the already robust analytical 
and procedural requirements of the rulemaking process. In particular, 
H.R. 899 would create needless grounds for judicial review, unduly 
slowing the regulatory process. In addition, it would add layers of 
procedural steps that would interfere with agency priority setting and 
compliance with statutory mandates.''
  I guess, not surprisingly to my friends on the other side, ``If H.R. 
899 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would 
recommend that he veto the bill.''
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to my friend's favorite rhetoric, the free 
market does not solve all problems. Markets fail. We have seen that, 
have we not? Government is the actor of last resort

[[Page 3564]]

when the market does not create the necessary incentives for businesses 
and individuals to protect the public good.
  What is more, Federal regulations are not strangling the economy or 
preventing growth. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
  As the Office of Management and Budget has reported, major Federal 
regulations issued over the last 10 years resulted in annual benefits 
from $193 billion to $800 billion, while costs are only between $57 
billion to $84 billion.
  It seems to me that an $84 billion investment with an $800 million 
return is not a bad thing.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would raise the 
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and give at least 25 million Americans a 
well-deserved pay raise.
  A business in the constituency that I serve did this on their own. 
Jaxson's Ice Cream Parlour in Dania Beach raised it because they said 
they feel the pain of the people that work with them and that they made 
a fair profit and wanted to share it with them.
  The American people are calling for an economy that works for 
everyone, not just those at the top.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the underlying 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  H.R. 899--Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2013

         (Rep. Foxx, R-NC, and 4 cosponsors, February 27, 2014)

       The Administration is committed to ensuring that 
     regulations are tailored to advance statutory goals in a 
     manner that is efficient and cost-effective, and that 
     minimizes uncertainty. By layering on additional, burdensome 
     judicial review and other unnecessary changes to the 
     regulatory process, H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates 
     Information and Transparency Act of 2013, would introduce 
     needless uncertainty into agency decision-making and 
     undermine the ability of agencies to provide critical public 
     health and safety protections. Accordingly, the 
     Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 899.
       When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, the agency 
     must adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural 
     requirements of Federal law, including the Administrative 
     Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the 
     Congressional Review Act. In addition, for decades, agency 
     rulemaking has been guided by executive orders issued and 
     followed by administrations of both political parties. These 
     require regulatory agencies to promulgate regulations upon a 
     reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs, 
     to consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote 
     regulatory flexibility.
       The President's regulatory approach has been consistent 
     throughout his Administration. We don't have to choose 
     between protecting the health, welfare, and safety of 
     Americans and promoting economic growth, job creation, 
     competitiveness, and innovation--we can do both. To this end, 
     Executive Order 13563 requires careful cost-benefit analysis, 
     increased public participation, harmonization of rulemaking 
     across agencies, and flexible regulatory approaches. Through 
     executive orders and other presidential directives, agencies 
     must ensure that they take into account the consequences of 
     rulemaking on small businesses. And, through Executive Orders 
     13579 and 13610, the Administration has also taken important 
     steps to promote systematic retrospective review of 
     regulations by all agencies, including encouraging 
     independent agencies to conduct such a review. Collectively, 
     these requirements promote flexible, cost-effective 
     regulation.
       H.R. 899 would unnecessarily add to the already robust 
     analytical and procedural requirements of the rulemaking 
     process. In particular, H.R. 899 would create needless 
     grounds for judicial review, unduly slowing the regulatory 
     process. In addition, it would add layers of procedural steps 
     that would interfere with agency priority setting and 
     compliance with statutory mandates.
       If H.R. 899 were presented to the President, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, as proud as I am of this legislation, I realize that its 
passage on Friday will not be front-page news.
  I understand that ``Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Band Together to 
Close Technical Loopholes in UMRA'' isn't exactly a riveting headline, 
but what we are doing here is important.
  In Congress, we often focus our energy and attention on those issues 
that are most divisive and controversial. There are real substantive 
disagreements between the two parties and among the American people.
  But Congress must do the hard things, and every now and then we get 
an opportunity to do something easy. This should be easy. The reforms 
in this bill are ``low hanging fruit.''
  These are modest reforms supported by Republicans and Democrats 
alike. Some of these changes merely codify executive orders issued by 
the last two Democrat Presidents.

                              {time}  1715

  Some of my colleagues have suggestions for improvement and have 
offered amendments to this bill. Great. I welcome their suggestions. 
Those amendments will be discussed here tomorrow in an open and 
transparent process.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, every Democrat amendment that was submitted has 
been included in this rule.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this sensible 
legislation that will enhance transparency, accountability, and 
awareness of Federal mandates. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
filed its report (H. Rept. 113-352, Part 1) to accompany H.R. 899 on 
February 14, 2014, it included an exchange of letters between the 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules and the Chairman of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform. The letter from Chairman Sessions was 
inadvertently dated February 11, 2013 and was intended to be dated 
February 11, 2014.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 492 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration 'of the bill (H.R. 
     1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1010.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the

[[Page 3565]]

     control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were 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 adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 192, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 79]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--192

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blumenauer
     Davis, Danny
     Gardner
     Gosar
     Hinojosa
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Rice (SC)
     Runyan
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Upton
     Walden

                              {time}  1743

  Ms. BONAMICI and Messrs. NADLER and YARMUTH changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. POSEY, Mrs. LUMMIS, and Mr. ADERHOLT changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 190, not voting 13, as follows:

[[Page 3566]]



                             [Roll No. 80]

                               AYES--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blumenauer
     Davis, Danny
     Gardner
     Gosar
     Hinojosa
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Rice (SC)
     Runyan
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Upton
     Walden

                              {time}  1750

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

                          ____________________