[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3158-3164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 998, SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING 
 REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 83, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
     DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO ``CLARIFICATION OF EMPLOYER'S 
 CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AN ACCURATE RECORD OF EACH 
                    RECORDABLE INJURY AND ILLNESS''

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 150 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 150

       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. 998) to provide for the establishment of a 
     process for the review of rules and sets of rules, 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.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 83) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's Continuing 
     Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each 
     Recordable Injury and Illness''. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 150, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward 
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for 
consideration of H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, and H.J. Res. 83, a 
resolution disapproving a Department of Labor rule relating to employee 
recordkeeping.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each piece of legislation, 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the chairman and 
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. The rule 
also provides for a motion to recommit for both pieces of underlying 
legislation. Additionally, the rule makes in order 12 amendments--11 
from our friends across the aisle--to the SCRUB Act.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from 
Chairman Chaffetz and Congressman Cartwright on behalf of the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee, and

[[Page 3159]]

Congressmen Byrne and Courtney on behalf of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee.
  Both pieces of legislation before us today take steps to remove 
unnecessary burdens that the government has levied on hardworking 
Americans from coast to coast. The regulatory burden in this country is 
staggering. In fact, the Code of Federal Regulations spans more than 
178,000 pages and contains more than 1 million regulatory restrictions.
  Let's let that sink in for just a moment, Mr. Speaker. Let's think 
about that for a second. 178,000 pages and over 1 million regulatory 
restrictions. An average of nearly 12,000 new restrictions are added 
each year.
  Let me be clear. Some regulations are necessary. They are completely 
what we need to have. I don't believe that all regulation is bad. So 
before we go down that path, let me just say that this is a fact, and 
we can continue this.
  I believe we need clean air, clean water, smart standards for how we 
handle nuclear energy, and worker protections, just to name a few. I 
also believe that we have allowed the regulatory scheme to run amok. 
Congress has ceded power to agencies, which have implemented more and 
more regulations, oftentimes with less and less benefit to Americans.
  Far too many regulations offer our citizens minimal benefits at 
confounding cost. Taxpayers and businesses alike are withering under 
regulations that are outdated, irrelevant, and nonsensical.
  Do we really need a regulation to mandate what kind of latch a baker 
uses on a flour bin? Do we really want to tell people that their 
dishwashers are forbidden to use enough water to actually clean their 
dishes, forcing them to wash their dishes twice rather than it actually 
conserving water?
  Unfortunately, these stories aren't works of fiction. They are real 
regulations put in place by Federal agencies. We have to take steps to 
restore common sense to the regulatory process and clean up the 
regulation roster.
  It is time we identify and abolish those regulations that are 
pointless, those that prevent people from doing their jobs, and those 
that are inefficient and ineffective. The SCRUB Act, Mr. Speaker, takes 
steps to do just that and contributes to our efforts to rein in 
overregulation.
  The SCRUB Act, introduced by my friend from Missouri, Congressman 
Jason Smith, establishes a bipartisan Retrospective Regulatory Review 
Commission to identify unnecessary rules that are hindering economic 
growth. The commission will then identify which rules need to be 
repealed immediately and which ones can be addressed by more flexible 
procedures outlined in the legislation.
  The commission will report these findings to Congress, and Congress 
can then vote on these recommendations and take steps either to begin 
immediately repealing regulations or implementing a CutGo process.
  Importantly, the commission created by the SCRUB Act will also ensure 
that redundant regulations from different agencies will be reviewed. 
Currently, agencies implement their directives absent a systemwide 
view, meaning that overlapping and even conflicting regulations are 
enacted far too often.
  From conversations with my constituents in northeast Georgia, I have 
witnessed how overregulation is stifling growth in our communities. The 
remedy for this economic anemia is to get unnecessary regulations off 
the books and, instead, focus on enforcing regulations that are 
actually achieving benefits for our neighbors.
  The second piece of legislation that this rule provides for also 
returns us to reasonable policies that reinstate the spirit of the law. 
H.J. Res. 83, introduced by my fellow Rules Committee member, 
Congressman Byrne from Alabama, utilizes the Congressional Review Act 
to overturn a rule from the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, or OSHA.
  Worker protections are critically important, yet they lose their 
purpose when they fail to protect workers and jobs effectively. Too 
often, OSHA forgets that mission, and the rule we are talking about 
today is the latest example of misguided regulatory zeal.
  In the waning days of the previous administration, OSHA put forth a 
final rule implementing punitive standards on employers, a move that 
contradicts the underlying statute. Under the law, employers are 
required to record and maintain logs of workplace injuries and 
illnesses that occur during a 5-year period; however, the employers can 
only be cited for recordkeeping violations within a 6-month time 
period.
  Now, think about what was just said here. They have to keep it for 5 
years, but they can only be cited for violations within a 6-month time 
period.
  This arrangement is constructive. Logs should be kept up to date so 
that businesses can make informed decisions about health and safety in 
the workplace. This requirement encourages businesses to improve safety 
measures in a timely manner. However, the previous administration 
decided to rewrite the law through regulation in a way that penalizes 
and burdens small businesses without achieving meaningful benefit. OSHA 
finalized a rule that would extend the threat of penalty for 
recordkeeping violations up to 5 years.
  Aside from ignoring existing law and court decisions that directly 
contradict this new regulation, OSHA has chosen to punish small 
businesses for paperwork violations rather than focusing resources on 
improving worker safety.
  We can agree that keeping our workplaces safe is nonnegotiable, but 
OSHA has repeatedly overstepped its mission in order to collect fines 
and apply oppressive rules at the expense of opportunities to cultivate 
healthier working conditions. It is time to bring this regulatory 
mischief to an end, which is why I am glad to see this resolution of 
disapproval to overturn the most recent OSHA overstep.
  Mr. Speaker, both the SCRUB Act and the resolution of disapproval 
provided for by this rule take commonsense steps to unlock the 
regulatory shackles Federal agencies have put on our economy and 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the rule for consideration. As my 
friend across the aisle has already noted, this rule bundles together 
two unrelated pieces of legislation. We are developing a pattern here 
of doing that in the Rules Committee.
  The first of these is H.J. Res. 83, a Congressional Review Act 
resolution of disapproval that seeks to overturn a Department of Labor 
rule on workplace injuries, undermining workplace safety and health in 
the process.
  The second measure is H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, which establishes a 
new commission to review Federal regulations with the aim of needlessly 
politicizing and, thereby, undermining the regulatory framework that 
keeps our air clean and our water safe to drink.
  I note that my friend on the other side of the aisle did not mention 
that this commission will cost $30 million for work that last night's 
presenter at the Rules Committee said that Congress can do, the 
argument being that Congress doesn't have enough staff so we are going 
to send it over to nine people and pay $30 million, starting, to have 
them do the work that we in Congress should be doing.
  Beginning with the CRA resolution--the 14th such resolution 
considered by the House this month--the Republican leadership is 
continuing its onslaught against well-thought-out and measured 
regulations. I get it. Republicans control the House, the Senate, and 
the White House. They are desperately trying to ram through their 
priorities before anyone notices what they are doing.
  It is interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, where the Republican majority 
has focused its attention throughout the past month. I can't help but 
notice that 40 days into Donald John Trump's administration, he has not 
put forth one single jobs measure. Democrats, on the other hand, 
continue to talk about the need for good, well-paying jobs. The United 
States Senate put out the Democrats' trillion-dollar jobs plan

[[Page 3160]]

that anybody can read on their website on where we stand when it comes 
to well-paying jobs.
  Yet, as we advocate for our plan to rebuild our Nation's 
infrastructure and create over 15 million jobs in the process, 
Republicans pass measures to drug-test applicants for unemployment 
insurance and repeal rules that require Federal contractors to disclose 
violations of Federal labor and worker safety laws.
  This resolution repeals a Department of Labor rule pertaining to the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The rule in question 
requires employers to keep and maintain accurate records of every 
recordable injury and illness in federally mandated logs for a period 
of 5 years.
  It is worth mentioning that this policy has been upheld in cases 
dating back to 1993. The rule, when implemented, added zero new 
compliance obligations, zero new reporting obligations, and cost a 
total of--you guessed it--zero dollars. Yet, once again, this is what 
we are spending our time on this week: repealing a thoughtful rule 
designed to protect workers.
  I am particularly concerned by this resolution as it actually 
jeopardizes workplace safety by allowing employers to avoid penalties 
for the underreporting of injuries over many years. Longstanding 
workplace hazards will and can certainly be masked.

                              {time}  1230

  This makes it less likely that employers or employees will take 
corrective actions or that OSHA will find the hazards when they do an 
inspection, leaving workers in danger.
  It is also worth noting that due to its very small budget, OSHA is 
only able to inspect a workplace, on average, once every 140 years. You 
heard me correctly, once every 140 years. That makes data even more 
important. Yet, by diminishing the reliability of a worksite's injury 
data, which some employers systematically underreport, this resolution 
also takes away OSHA's ability to protect workers from the most 
significant hazards.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout the past week, concerned Americans attended 
town halls across the country, and for those who were actually able to 
meet with their Republican representative in Congress, the 
conversations focused on protecting health care, creating jobs, and 
protecting the environment. At these meetings, constituents did not ask 
for fewer workplace protections, they did not ask for Congress to act 
to make it easier for people with severe mental illness to purchase 
guns, they didn't ask for Congress to ease disclosure requirements for 
oil companies making payments to foreign governments, and yet these are 
the things the Republican majority has already chosen to focus on this 
month.
  Watching the news, I did not hear one person say: if only Congress 
would repeal anticorruption rules, undermine my retirement security, 
and then allow endangered animals on national wildlife refuges to be 
killed using inhumane methods, if only Congress would do these things, 
my life would be better. Not one person, Mr. Speaker. Yet, in the past 
month, the House voted to do all of the things that I just mentioned. I 
submit to the American people watching at home right now that this is 
the face of today's Republican Party. Tell me who you think is really 
on your side.
  Turning our attention to the SCRUB Act, this bill would establish a 
$30 million commission with unlimited subpoena authority that is 
empowered to dismantle long-established, science-based public health 
and safety standards. The SCRUB Act would undermine the ability of 
agencies to react to immediate public health threats by adopting the 
regulatory CutGo process. The CutGo system is, in my opinion, 
completely detached from reality. This requirement will prohibit 
agencies from issuing any new rules, even in the case of emergencies or 
imminent harm to the public, until they repeal an existing rule to 
offset the cost. Along with bills that have already come to the House 
floor under this Republican Congress, as well as Donald Trump's 
executive actions mandating a regulatory freeze, this legislation 
demonstrates a continued attack on standards set in place to protect 
American families.
  I guess it is not all that surprising that my Republican friends are 
pushing through legislation that prioritizes corporate profit over 
health and safety of the American people. Whether it is denying access 
to women's health care or rolling back environmental protections, 
Republicans are making it clear where their allegiances lie. For a 
party that prides itself on being anti-red tape, the SCRUB Act 
strangely duplicates existing requirements to conduct retrospective 
reviews of rules, rules on top of rules on top of rules. Our regulatory 
system should work for all American families and encourage companies to 
run safe, forward-thinking businesses. This legislation would move us 
in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I enjoy coming down here. I love being a part of 
debating and coming here to the floor. My friend from Florida and I do 
that quite regularly in the Committee on Rules, and it is a good thing. 
He has brought up a lot of bills over the last month. He listed out a 
list of horribles that was all discussed on this floor. I would 
encourage everyone to go back and look at the other side, as Paul 
Harvey used to say, and the rest of the story. So for all the list of 
horribles, Mr. Speaker, we also need to balance on the votes that were 
cast on this floor and the debate had on this floor was not a one-sided 
affair. It was two, and the applicants were going.
  The other thing that just struck me, Mr. Speaker, was this, 
especially dealing with the CRA, the records. It was interesting to see 
that this was a carefully thought-out proposal. It was not a carefully 
thought-out proposal. It was a reaction to a 2012 court case, the Volks 
case, in which the three D.C. Appellate Court judges, including 
Henderson, Brown, and Garland, said: OSHA, you can't do this, you can't 
go back and maintain the records and then only be able--what the law 
actually says is, punish within 6 months of this.
  So this is not long and thought out. It was a way, as was established 
in the Volks case, actually the case said: ``We do not believe 
Congress''--these were the judges speaking--``expressly established a 
statute of limitations only to implicitly encourage the Secretary to 
ignore it.''
  So this goes back to the heart, Mr. Speaker. If we are wanting to 
discuss the face of a Republican majority that is listening to the 
Constitution and the American people saying we need relief from some of 
these regulatory burdens in which good people--I will never not state 
that good people work in these agencies, but when you give good people 
a job, and you tell them to go do something and to sit in their 
cubicles or sit in their offices and say how can I come up with more 
regulatory, they are going to do it. Americans are the best workers in 
the world. They are going to use their talents.
  The problem is when you put them in a position in which many times 
their talents do not equal what is happening in the real world. Mr. 
Speaker, you have seen that in your State. I have seen that in my 
State. In fact, we have seen it in Florida, as well, and other States. 
It is simply bringing us back to commonsense reasoning in this in 
saying why, when you cannot by law punish this, why are you keeping it?
  The court actually also made an interesting statement as well in 
this, and in one of the footnotes it said: ``That OSHA did not cite 
Volks for a failure to retain injury records when that is the only 
conduct for which the statute of limitations would not have clearly 
expired suggests that OSHA had, at some point, correctly understood 
that an unmade record cannot be said to have not been retained and that 
an employer's obligations with respect to making and keeping records 
are distinct.''
  The idea that you are somehow going to harm recordkeeping here--which 
is a separate violation, by the way, which has nothing to do with the 
keeping of

[[Page 3161]]

the records 5 years, let's at least get this process straight here. If 
you do not, as an employer, record workplace injuries and record these 
incidents, you are in an issue there. You are violating the law there. 
So let's look at this. OSHA has a great place. It should be the 
teaching arm. It should be the encouraging arm for every employer to 
look to for best practices and standards on how to do what I believe 
every employer here inherently gets up every morning wanting to do. 
They do not want to have a workforce that is hurt, maimed, or put at 
risk in their jobs every day.
  Instead, OSHA has morphed, over time, and this body is partially to 
blame. It has morphed into something that, frankly, has left its 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It has become punitive. 
It has become a way of not being helpful, but yet actually hurtful in 
the marketplace.
  So as we look at this, as we talk about this--and I appreciate my 
friend from Florida, and he makes a good case for his side--I am going 
to simply make the case for our side that when you look at regulatory 
burdens that shouldn't be there, when you are looking at it, as we just 
talked about, where every regulatory burden does not come down to clean 
air and clean water. Every regulatory burden we talk about does not 
come down to clean water, clean air, or working on airplanes or 
anything else. There are some that just simply are in the way in 
business. Like I mentioned earlier in my talk concerning how the 
linchpin on a baker's can actually should work. Really, Mr. Speaker?
  So in this issue, let's continue to move how we are, let's continue 
to put forward commonsense regulations. We can disagree, and that is 
why that vote total on that board will show up in just a little while. 
But at the end of the day, who is on your side? It is the Republican 
majority who says: let's get to work safely, helpful, let's make sure 
everybody has the opportunity to continue to do what they intended to 
do, but do so in a sense that makes sense and doesn't continue to be 
punitive.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the passion of my friend from Georgia. I would suggest 
to him that I am amused that he would get in the weeds in a rather 
substantial legal opinion. A portion of it he correctly cited, but he 
omitted the continuing part of the judge's remarks that said that, 
indeed, you could go back and put forth a resolution.
  I find it particularly amusing that my friends on the other side, 
after not granting that judge a hearing so that he could become a 
Supreme Court Justice, now want to say what a great judge he is and 
what a great amount of work he does. Shame on everyone who did not give 
him an appropriate hearing. But I understand what it is to steal a 
Justice of the Supreme Court, and that is what my friends on the 
Republican side did. This judge's opinion continued on to say that you 
could establish regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has 
disclosed his tax return information. These returns have provided a 
basic level of transparency that has helped to ensure the public's 
interest is placed first. The American people deserve the same level of 
disclosure from Donald John Trump. If they continue to refuse to 
provide it, it is incumbent upon us, as the people's elected 
representatives, to hold the executive branch accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring Representative Anna Eshoo's bill which 
would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to 
release their tax returns.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
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. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good 
friend and classmate, to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), my friend, classmate, and wonderful colleague, for yielding 
time to me.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this 
bipartisan bill that I have written, the Presidential Tax Transparency 
Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote.
  The Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require the President and 
all future Presidents and Presidential nominees of the major parties, 
Democrats and Republicans, to publicly disclose their tax returns. It 
came as a surprise to many Americans, during the 2016 campaign, that 
this disclosure was not required by law. Instead, we have had a 
tradition of voluntary disclosure among every President of both parties 
since the post-Watergate era. Until now, our Presidents have recognized 
that those who seek or hold the most powerful office in the world 
should be held to the highest standard of transparency.
  Donald Trump is the first President to refuse to release his tax 
returns since Gerald Ford, a man of the House. I remember when his 
remains were brought to the Capitol where he rested in the rotunda but 
came by the doors of the House. He was a man of the House and a man of 
integrity.

                              {time}  1245

  He along with a host of others, Democrats and Republicans, 
voluntarily released their tax returns. But Mr. Trump's 2016 candidate 
filing with the Federal Election Commission shows that he has 564 
financial positions in companies located both in the United States and 
around the world, including relationships with state-affiliated 
businesses in several countries.
  Why is this important to note? The President had an opportunity to 
resolve these potential conflicts of interest by divesting and placing 
his business assets into a true blind trust, as other Presidents have 
done, Republicans and Democrats. Instead, he chose to turn over control 
of his business to his sons in an arrangement that the Director of the 
nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics called ``wholly inadequate'' 
and ``meaningless from a conflict of interest perspective.'' Since he 
is taken office, these ethics concerns have been borne out in the form 
of his and his campaign's connections to Russia, deeply, deeply 
troubling to all of us and to the American people, legitimately so; his 
family's potential new business dealings in the Dominican Republic and 
Uruguay; and the hiring of a ``director of diplomatic sales'' at his 
Washington, D.C., hotel to attract high-priced business among foreign 
diplomats. This is deeply unsettling, to say the least.
  Simply put, the President's business empire makes him more 
susceptible to conflicts of interest than any other President in the 
history of our country. Three of the President's nominees have already 
withdrawn their names from consideration due to potential financial 
conflicts of interest. Only a full release of the President's tax 
returns will provide the public with clear information as to his 
potential conflicts of interest and his potential entanglements with 
foreign governments and foreign businesses.
  Last night, here on the floor, the House voted along party lines, 
unfortunately, to block an effort to obtain the President's tax returns 
under the House's existing authority. Today, we have another chance to 
honor the will of the American people and write this important 
disclosure tradition into law--into law.
  According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 74 percent of 
Americans believe the President should release his tax returns--74 
percent. The top petition on the White House website has over 1 million 
signatures to it, calling on the President to release his tax returns.
  I think the voice of the people, the American people, is clear. As 
their representatives, they deserve to have us

[[Page 3162]]

take action on this because we all want a conflict of interest-free 
President.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so we can hold 
an immediate vote on the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As my friend from Florida just said, I think we can sum it up very 
easily right here on this discussion. And, no, I did not choose not to 
continue the other quotes in the ruling which were, again, pretty 
amazing. I will just say this. The reason is because I was saving it 
for now.
  They said: Well, you can go ahead and do a new regulation you can 
make them keep for 5 years. But as an Old Scripture taught me years 
ago: all things may be lawful, but not all things are profitable. You 
can do some things, but, in the end, are they really getting at the end 
result of what OSHA is supposed to do? Are you protecting employers and 
employees? Are you making the workplace safer? And right here, we are 
just not seeing that.
  I think what is also interesting as we look at this is let's just 
have common sense in this. You still cannot punish up to 6 months. The 
court actually even said also, as well, as much the same on page 13 of 
their opinion.
  I think what we have to look at here is, in looking at this, let's 
talk about the issues of common sense; let's talk about regulatory 
burden that works instead of regulatory burden that does not.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This evening, Donald John Trump will address a joint session of 
Congress. I expect we will hear some version of the same message we 
have heard throughout the first month of his chaotic administration--
talk of jobs and American workers and protecting our country--but that 
is all it has been up to now, just talk. Instead of actually doing any 
of those things, Republicans are sowing chaos trying to turn their 
absurd campaign speeches into something that resembles policy; and, 
frankly, that just will not fly.
  Donald John Trump's campaign rhetoric doesn't fit the actual 
challenges of governing, and I believe my friends on the other side of 
the aisle are starting to come to this realization. If they haven't, 
may I urge upon them that the rubber is going to hit the road with the 
debt ceiling and with tax reform and with repeal and replace of the 
Affordable Care Act. I ask the American public to watch the divisions 
on the other side when the rubber hits the road.
  Mr. Speaker, with every action they take, reality and facts keep 
stopping them in their tracks. The un-American Muslim ban was put in 
check by the judicial branch. Their attempts to repeal ObamaCare have 
been checked by their own constituents at their own townhalls. The 
majority needs to wake up and realize that these are not sound 
policies, but reckless chaos.
  It is past time for the majority to get serious about the serious 
business of governing. And yet, with these measures here today, all we 
continue to see are antiworker, antienvironment, and, in the final 
analysis, anti-American proposals. The American people want solutions, 
not a governing party that just checks the box of unrealistic, chaotic, 
and harmful campaign promises.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
measure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As we come to the close of this time of rule debate, I think we have 
laid this out. I think, again, it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, what we 
determine and what we go forward with in the process.
  As we move forward, it is interesting to me--and I would be, too, if 
I were in the minority and didn't really have a plan except the one 
that has been tearing up the health insurance market, that has been 
hurting others. And now as we look to actually make movement on a 
replacement and repeal of that, I would say that I would watch for 
divisions. I would watch for cracks and the fissures. I would do 
whatever I could.
  But the truth of the matter is that, over the next month, in this 
body, we are going to move forward with what we have said we are going 
to do. We are going to be working on those aspects. We are going to be 
bringing it to the floor, and the American people can make the judgment 
for themselves.
  People will continue to discuss. It is healthy in our country to have 
that discussion. It is healthy that we move forward. It is also healthy 
we examine all of the facts.
  This rule today, though, simply deals with common sense. Let's look 
at our regulatory burden. Let's look at issues that--again, it is one 
thing to look at a rule that is there for protection. Workplace safety 
is enhanced by making you record what is going on and making you be 
able to then correct what may be a problem in your business. But simply 
keeping records for 5 years when you can't be punished but for 6 months 
of those is simply putting a burden on business to keep records that 
are really at the end of the day not accomplishing your bottom line.
  It goes back to what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. I believe that OSHA 
is a valuable organization when doing what it is supposed to be doing: 
protecting workplace safety, doing things that actually matter, doing 
things that actually help. But many times in my businesses that I go 
to, they have put in rules over the years that say that we are now in a 
continuing violation.
  In other words, if one time they come in and they say that an 
electrical outlet is not plugged in properly to an extension cord, you 
fix that. When they come back 2 or 3 months later and see something on 
the other side of the building that deals with electrical, then they 
will say, well, it is a continuing violation, not the violation 
previous, and they triple the fines.
  OSHA now, and the good folks who work there, I believe, truly want to 
help. They truly have set out best practices. But they have grown to 
the point where we have allowed them to become not the help that they 
should be, but are basically and many times a hindrance and a menace to 
our businesses, from the farms to the factories, to the coal mines, all 
that. It has just gotten out of hand.
  So my discussion, Mr. Speaker, is this. How do you get regulatory 
burden that actually makes sense?
  We are not going to stand here and argue over a rule that makes 
sense. I will never sit here and say that we should not record 
workplace injuries and let businessowners then be fined if they are 
doing something wrong. We will never argue about that.
  But when it comes to the point of excessive recordkeeping that, at 
the end of the day, does nothing except burden the business, how do you 
explain that as helping workplace safety? If my son is in the pool and 
can't get to the side and I do nothing, I can have great intentions; 
but unless I get in and bring him to the side, then I have actually 
done something.
  A rule that has no end result to the bottom line of what you are 
doing is simply waving and saying, ``Oh, I am doing something,'' 
instead of getting back to the purpose that OSHA should be about. When 
businesses and OSHA cannot work together collaboratively to seek and to 
set a process in which businesses are safer and employees are 
healthier, then OSHA is failing and they have become punitive in 
nature.
  Why don't they come in and help businesses? Why don't they come in 
and start? And if there is a business that continues the process of 
being bad actors in the marketplace, then take them out, fine them, do 
what you need to do. But I, myself, believe that most businessowners--
and I was one at one point--that we don't go in every day wanting to 
hurt employees. We don't want to do that. We want to have a safe 
workplace that presents a good product, that presents a good service, 
that presents the activity that continues our economic engine.
  Let's quit defending rules that don't work. Let's quit wasting time 
defending rules and having our agencies in this city determine that all 
they want to do is generate rules because that is their job 
description. Let's see the things that actually work. If they want to 
be policy experts, then let them run

[[Page 3163]]

for office. But if you are going to at least look at it, do it by the 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, these rules before us today provide two very important 
bills that take steps to get our economic engine going again. They do, 
as we have talked about, look at unnecessary rules. They look at things 
that need to be examined.
  But we also can't simply pretend existing nonsensical regulations 
don't exist, because they are being enforced at the expense of 
innovators and job creators across the country, and they are being 
enforced without using any common sense.
  A case in point, did you know that trains have to have an F painted 
on the front of them so that people can tell which end is the front? I 
don't know about you, but I believe Americans can tell the front from 
the back of a train.
  We have got to identify existing business regulations like this that 
are outdated and simply don't make sense anymore and start taking steps 
to repeal them. The bills before us today are a step in the right 
direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
for H.R. 998, the ``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are 
Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017,'' or ``SCRUB Act,'' and the 
underlying bill.
  I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it hampers the 
ability of federal agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect 
citizens.
  The SCRUB Act seeks to establish a Retrospective Regulatory Review 
Commission to identify and recommend to Congress existing Federal 
regulations that can be repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory costs 
to the U.S. economy.
  As such, this bill purports to reduce bureaucracy by establishing a 
new ``regulatory review'' commission charged with identifying 
duplicative, redundant, or so-called ``obsolete'' regulations to 
repeal.
  Specifically, H.R. 1155 would establish a commission with unlimited 
subpoena power consisting of unelected, appointed members to review 
existing agency rules and make recommendations to Congress for an up or 
down vote on rules to be eliminated.
  The scope of this review would be virtually unlimited leaving no rule 
or regulation safe, and Congress would be prohibited from debating the 
individual repeal recommendations but would instead be forced to 
consider the commission's rule recommendations in a single package.
  Under the legislation as currently drafted, agencies would be 
required to follow a ``cut-go'' process--prohibiting a new rule from 
being issued until an existing rule of equal or greater ``cost'' 
according to the commission is repealed--thereby undermining the 
ability of agencies to quickly respond to imminent threats to public 
health and safety.
  Mr. Speaker, the SCRUB Act--and the creation of this $30 million 
regulatory commission--is problematic because it would operate with 
little meaningful oversight, transparency, or public accountability to 
ensure that its recommendations do not subvert the public interest and 
safety.
  For instance, the SCRUB Act would prohibit any regulatory agency from 
issuing any new rule or informal statement, including non-legislative 
and procedural rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm 
to public health, until the agency first offsets the costs of the new 
rule or guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the 
Commission.
  This regulatory ``cut-go'' process would force agencies to prioritize 
between existing protections and responding to new threats to our 
health and safety.
  Such a sweeping requirement would endanger the lives of Americans by 
creating unnecessary delays in the Federal rulemaking process and 
creating additional burdens and implementation problems that will only 
divert critical agency resources and diminish agencies' ability to 
protect and inform the public in times of imminent danger and need.
  For instance, if an agency needed to respond to an imminent hazard to 
the public or environment, it would have to either rescind an existing 
rule that is identified by the Commission's arbitrary and cost-centric 
process or choose not to act.
  That is why I offered an amendment that would have exempted from the 
SCRUB Act any rule relating to the prevention of cyber-attacks intended 
to interfere with elections for public office.
  Regrettably, the Rules Committee did not make this salutary amendment 
in order, which is another reason I cannot support the legislation.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment would protect American citizens by ensuring 
that our federal agencies are not unnecessarily burdened with 
regulatory mandates that would jeopardize the ability of federal 
agencies to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes, prevent 
cyber terrorism, and enhance the security and integrity of 
cybernetworks and systems.
  Now is not the time to undermine or impede the ability of DHS, DOJ, 
and other federal agencies to combat growing threats and active acts of 
cyber terrorism.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose the rule for H.R. 998, and urge 
all Members to join me in voting against this irresponsible and unwise 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 150 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require 
     the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and 
     certain candidates for the office of the President, 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 among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and 
     Government Reform. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 305.
                                  ____


        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 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.''

[[Page 3164]]

       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.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________