UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013; Congressional Record Vol. 160, No. 34
(House of Representatives - February 28, 2014)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H2069-H2086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 899.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 492 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 899.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0916


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 899) to provide for additional safeguards with respect to 
imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Last Congress, the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee that 
I chaired began studying the effectiveness of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, also known as UMRA, which was enacted in 1995.
  We held three legislative hearings, and we inquired with the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs about various UMRA provisions and the possible 
improvements to the law.
  During our hearings, representatives from State and local 
governments, and the private sector, they all came to testify about 
many of the burdensome mandates that are actually not characterized and 
not protected under the original Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The 
analyses often failed to capture the heavy burdens of those regulatory 
mandates.
  UMRA's limited coverage is a concern because, as the chief economist 
of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council testified: 
``Unfunded mandates and regulations continually stifle private sector 
growth and economic expansion.''
  To help raise awareness about unfunded mandates and ensure more of 
these mandates are captured by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, H.R. 
899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, was 
introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx. It is bipartisan 
legislation that will close existing loopholes in the law and bring 
more transparency and accountability to the regulatory process.
  The legislation has the support of the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Conference of 
State Legislatures.
  The American Action Forum, which is headed by former CBO Director 
Doug Holtz-Eakin, also supports the concepts of this bill.
  H.R. 899 requires that independent regulatory agencies comply with 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Independent regulatory agencies are 
currently excluded from review, but the regulations they promulgate can 
impose significant costs and burdensome requirements.
  Currently, regulations issued by agencies such as the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, they are 
excluded from cost-benefit analyses otherwise required of other 
agencies.
  The Congressional Research Service found that between 2010 and 2012, 
nine independent agencies issued 57 major rules. Those are rules with a 
cost to the economy of over $100 million. But

[[Page H2070]]

none of those agencies monetized both costs and benefits in estimating 
the impacts of the rules.
  H.R. 899 codifies the principles of regulation in Executive Order 
12866, issued by President Clinton and reaffirmed in Executive Order 
13563, issued by President Obama. It also codifies Executive Order 
12866's requirement that agencies conduct a cost-benefit analysis.
  H.R. 899 requires agencies to consult with the private sector prior 
to proposing a major rule. Currently, this requirement only applies to 
State, local, and tribal governments.
  In light of President Obama's emphasis on early stakeholder input on 
the development of Federal regulations, there is no reason to exclude 
private sector stakeholders from early consultation in this 
requirement.

  H.R. 899 allows the chairman or ranking member of any congressional 
committee to request that an agency conduct a retrospective analysis of 
an existing Federal regulatory mandate.
  Again, President Obama even has acknowledged the need for 
retrospective review, stating that each agency ``should periodically 
review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any 
such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed 
to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less 
burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.'' This change would 
ensure existing regulations are actually reviewed.
  H.R. 899 extends judicial review to ensure that agencies carefully 
consider the least costly or least burdensome regulatory alternatives.
  According to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, the 
current judicial review provision included in the original UMRA ``lacks 
teeth'' and ``offers no real incentives for agencies to deal 
legitimately with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requirements.''
  H.R. 899 ensures that Federal agencies and the Congressional Budget 
Office estimate the entire cost of a Federal mandate, such as forgone 
profits, costs passed on to consumers, and behavioral changes as a 
result of a Federal mandate.
  The administration said it is ``strongly supportive'' of the first 
generation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. I am glad that we are 
here today to make the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act even stronger.
  I have stated before, and I will state again, making these reforms is 
not an attack on the current administration. Many of the issues we are 
here to deal with today did not originate in this administration, and 
the solutions we propose will extend well beyond this administration.
  It is the role and responsibility of Congress to ensure regulations 
are consistent with legislative intent and they are written to cause 
the least amount of burden and the greatest possible benefit.
  I encourage all Members to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information 
and Transparency Act. This bill is the second major piece of 
legislation being considered this week that will add needless and 
counterproductive red tape to the rulemaking process.
  I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Oversight Committee 
has jurisdiction over the executive branch and legislative jurisdiction 
over governmentwide policies.
  It is our duty and our responsibility to ensure that the Federal 
Government is operating effectively and efficiently. It is also the 
responsibility of every Member of Congress, and we must hold that 
dearly.
  This legislation may be well-intended, but it would have unintended 
consequences that would make government less efficient and less 
effective.
  We rely on agency rulemakings to protect our children, protect our 
workers, and protect our economy. The Coalition for Sensible 
Safeguards, a group of more than 150 good government, labor, 
scientific, faith, health, and community organizations, sent a letter 
to the Oversight Committee. Here is just a portion of what that letter 
said:

       The Wall Street economic collapse, the British Petroleum 
     oil spill catastrophe, various food and product safety 
     recalls, and numerous industrial disasters, including the 
     Upper Big Branch mine explosion in West Virginia and the 
     fertilizer plant in West, Texas, have all dramatically 
     demonstrated the need for a stronger regulatory system that 
     is more responsive to the public interest. Congress should be 
     moving forward to protect the public from harm, not rolling 
     back the clock and weakening important safeguards.

  Mr. Chairman, now is not the time for us to be adding unnecessary, 
burdensome requirements to the rulemaking process. Our constituents 
expect us to make them safer, not to make it harder for agencies to 
keep them safe.
  The bill would give private industry an unfair advantage in the 
rulemaking process. Under this bill, agencies would be required to 
consult with corporations before consulting with customers who would be 
protected by the regulations. In fact, the bill requires agencies to 
consult with private industry ``before issuance of a proposed 
rulemaking.''
  This means that, for example, if the Department of Agriculture 
planned to propose a new food safety rule, corporate agricultural 
interests would get advance access to the rule, and the opportunity to 
shape it, before food safety groups, children's health groups, doctors, 
or independent scientists are able to participate in the process.
  I believe that businesses should have the opportunity to provide 
comments on proposed rules. I think it is very important. They should 
do it through the normal public comment process, however, just like 
other stakeholders.
  The bill also would put independent agencies in jeopardy of political 
interference. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts 
independent agencies from its reporting requirements. This bill removes 
that exemption.
  That would mean that independent regulatory agencies like the 
Securities and Exchange Commission would have to submit their rules to 
the Office of Management and Budget for review, which could undermine 
their independence. I plan to offer an amendment to strike that 
provision, and I hope it will be adopted.
  This is a well-intended bill with serious, negative consequences. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting for the Record letters of 
exchange between the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and 
the Committees on Budget and Judiciary and Rules regarding the 
committees' jurisdictional interest in H.R. 899.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                           Committee on Rules,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2013.
     Hon. Darrell Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Issa: On July 24, 2013, the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported H.R. 899, 
     the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
     2013. As you know, the Committee on Rules was granted an 
     additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to 
     the Committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives over rules and joint rules of the 
     House.
       Because of your willingness to consult with my committee 
     regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill 
     by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its 
     consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive 
     its jurisdiction over H.R. 899. In addition, the Committee on 
     Rules reserves its authority to seek conferees on any 
     provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction 
     during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on 
     this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any 
     request by the Committee on Rules for conferees on H.R. 899 
     or related legislation.
       I also request that you include this letter and your 
     response as part of your committee's report on the bill and 
     in the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pete Sessions.

[[Page H2071]]

     
                                  ____
         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
     Hon. Pete Sessions,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     Rules Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 899, the 
     ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
     2013,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 
     899 by your committee.
       I agree that the Committee on Rules has a valid 
     jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 899 and 
     that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely 
     affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 
     899. As you have requested, I will support your request for 
     an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your 
     Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this 
     or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.
       Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this 
     response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional 
     Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you 
     again for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
     Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Issa: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 
     899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act 
     of 2013. There are certain provisions in the legislation 
     which fall within Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Budget.
       In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
     expeditiously to floor consideration of this bill, I am 
     willing to waive this committee's right to sequential 
     referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
     consideration of the bill the Budget Committee does not waive 
     any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
     contained in the bill which fall within its jurisdiction.
       Please include a copy of this letter and any response in 
     the committee report on H.R. 899 as well as in the 
     Congressional Record during any floor consideration of this 
     bill. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have 
     worked regarding this matter and others between our 
     respective committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Paul Ryan,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     Committee on the Budget's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 
     899, the ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act 
     of 2013,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of 
     H.R. 899 by your committee.
       I agree that the Committee on Rules has a valid 
     jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 899 and 
     that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely 
     affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 
     899. As you have requested, I will support your request for 
     an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your 
     Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this 
     or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.
       Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this 
     response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional 
     Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you 
     again for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
     Hon. Darrell Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Issa: I am writing concerning H.R. 899, the 
     ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 
     2013,'' which your Committee ordered reported on July 24, 
     2013.
       As you know, the Committee on the Judiciary was given an 
     additional referral on this measure upon introduction. As a 
     result of your having consulted with the Judiciary Committee 
     concerning provisions of the bill that fall within our Rule X 
     jurisdiction, I agree to discharge the Committee on the 
     Judiciary from further consideration of H.R. 899. The 
     Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 899 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward. Our committee also 
     reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving 
     this or similar legislation, and requests your support for 
     any such request.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you include a copy 
     of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and 
     in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of 
     this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2014.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 
     899, the ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act 
     of 2013,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of 
     H.R. 899 by your committee.
       I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has a valid 
     jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 899 and 
     that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely 
     affected by your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 
     899. As you have requested, I will support your request for 
     an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your 
     Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this 
     or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.
       Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this 
     response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional 
     Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you 
     again for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Issa), the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, let me start off on a positive note. The 
positive note is the regular order in which we bring this important 
legislation. We have held 11 full committee hearings, 30 subcommittee 
hearings, produced three full staff reports.
  Between the work of Chairman Jordan, Chairman Lankford and 
Congresswoman Foxx on this legislation, there have been countless 
thousands of hours of hard work to figure the right way to say it to 
make sure it is narrow and consistent with multiple Presidents' 
policies of both parties.
  This legislation is filled with bipartisan support on each of the 
bills. This is, in fact, not a Republican or a Democratic idea.
  Mr. Chairman, that ends the positive part. I just listened to my 
ranking member in opposition, and I was shocked--shocked--that he would 
talk in terms of rulemaking shouldn't have the interference of the 
private sector. Customers should not look at their supplier being 
involved in the production of the regulation. Locking out people who 
have to manufacture the goods, produce the labels, comply with the law 
in the process is exactly what is wrong in government today.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Chairman, the American people know full well that a regulation is 
a law; a rule is a law. The idea that laws are produced in private with 
often special interest groups on one side only at the table and then 
put out as a take it or leave it, fight it if you can, is the absurdity 
of the regulatory state.
  Mr. Chairman, this commonsense reform is perhaps too little, rather 
than too much, because, Mr. Chairman, the lawmaking that is going on in 
the executive branch, including those so-called independent agencies, 
is independent of our responsibility, as Members of Congress.
  We are supposed to make the laws, and we are supposed to make them in 
the clear light of day, with all sides having an opportunity to be 
heard.
  Rulemaking for too long has been, in fact, done in secret, shown up 
without any input, and then those very manufacturers and producers and 
growers--the regulated--have the option of trying to come here and 
asking us to strike down or slow down the speed of some ill-conceived 
regulation.
  So this important legislation--something that President Obama 
supported, something President Clinton supported, something that people 
in the executive branch understand needs to happen--needs to pass here 
today. I strongly urge the passage of this bill, this bipartisan 
legislation.

[[Page H2072]]

  I thank Chairman Lankford, and I thank Congresswoman Foxx.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 899, the curiously named 
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. As a senior member 
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which passed this 
ill-conceived omnibus lobbyist gift bag on a strictly partisan vote, I 
can assure you that the only thing transparent about this bill are the 
invisible benefits it promises to help our economy.
  It is shameful that the majority would advance reckless legislation 
like this, which would seriously obstruct and weaken the Federal 
Government's ability to protect clean air and water, ensure a safe 
workplace, safeguard the purity of our food supply, provide safe 
medications and medical devices for the sick and injured, and protect 
consumers from predatory practices that have already caused so much 
pain across this country.
  This bill puts corporate profits ahead of protecting workers and 
consumers. It would shackle key Federal agencies, like OSHA, the FCC, 
the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and CFPB. It assumes that 
the ability to regulate is always an evil to be evaded, delayed, or 
defeated.
  It would give business interests advance notice of proposed 
regulations, but would exclude workers and the public from 
deliberations. My friends, that is not transparency. That is not good 
for our economy; and it is a prescription for more fraud and abuse, 
more environmental disaster, and more workplace accidents.
  H.R. 899 would greatly undermine the independence of Federal agencies 
that the American people depend on to keep them safe at home and at 
work and to give them a fair shake in the economy. This bill is not a 
job creator.
  It is a gift-wrapped offering to special interest lobbyists who 
advocate for no new rules, no regulation, and no consequences for their 
clients, regardless of how much damage they have caused.
  H.R. 899 would not only delay or halt the rulemaking process by 
adding time-consuming and redundant procedures, it would also strip 
away the public's right to petition agencies when they fail to act. 
These proposals would severely undermine our Nation's ability to 
establish and enforce reasonable health, safety, and environmental 
standards.
  Given the multiple health and safety disasters in communities and 
workplaces across the country that have occurred since the beginning of 
the year, it is hard to believe that the majority would attempt to 
weaken standards and safeguards for the public.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, recently, the director of the CFPB, Richard 
Cordray, came before Congress--testified before Congress and told us 
that he knows there are no perfect rules in government; and there is a 
process for Members of this body to challenge those rules and appeal 
for changes in the rules.
  We should follow that process and not come up with flawed legislation 
like this.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlelady from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who is the author of H.R. 899 and has worked 
on this concept for years, to try to repair the inconsistencies in the 
original law.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding and for shepherding this bill through the committee.
  I am especially grateful to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lankford) for his tireless efforts on behalf of this legislation; not 
only I, but the people of this country owe him a great debt of 
gratitude.
  I also want to commend him for employing such a wonderful staff. They 
have been a real pleasure to work with and have been devoted to getting 
this legislation passed.
  I want to recognize the efforts of Chairman Issa and his staff at the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, including his eloquent 
comments today. They have provided my office with five-star service.
  Finally, I want to recognize my esteemed Democrat colleagues, Loretta 
Sanchez, Mike McIntyre, and Collin Peterson. I am very grateful for 
their support and wise counsel. They realize that this legislation does 
not stop the Federal Government from adopting regulations.
  And I am, frankly, shocked at the allegations by some of our 
colleagues on the other side who say this is going to stop the Federal 
Government from regulating and putting in commonsense rules and 
regulations.
  If you look up the definition of ``straw dog'' in the dictionary, the 
arguments against this legislation this morning would fit the bill.
  Every year, Mr. Chairman, Washington imposes thousands of pages of 
rules and regulations on America's small businesses and local 
governments. Hidden in those pages are costly mandates that make it 
harder for companies to hire and for cash-strapped States, counties, 
and cities to keep streets safe and parks clean.
  Republicans and Democrats alike agree that each regulation the 
Federal Government hands down should be deliberative and economically 
defensible. This bill, H.R. 899, will ensure public and bureaucratic 
awareness about the cost in dollars and in jobs that Federal dictates 
pose to the economy and local governments.
  There is precedent for bipartisanship on this issue. In 1995, Members 
from both parties supported and President Clinton signed the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, which sought to expose Washington's abuse of 
unfunded Federal mandates.
  The 1995 bill was designed to force the Federal Government to 
estimate how much its mandates would cost local governments and 
employers, not to prevent it from regulating, but to make sure its 
regulations were fair and efficient.

  For the most part, the 1995 law has worked very well; but over the 
years, weaknesses in that law have been revealed--weaknesses that some 
government agencies and independent regulatory bodies have exploited.
  My bill, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, will 
correct these oversights and put some weight behind UMRA to ensure no 
government body purposefully or accidentally skirts public scrutiny 
when jobs and scarce resources are at stake.
  H.R. 899, Mr. Chairman, has bipartisan DNA. It codifies 
administrative fixes championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and 
promotes good government, accountability, and transparency, something 
we all believe in. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support 
this commonsense bipartisan bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a member of our committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, my good friend from 
Maryland, Elijah Cummings.
  Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my good friend, Ms. Foxx from North 
Carolina; and I don't doubt her commitment to try to rein in unfunded 
mandates, and I certainly supported the 1995 effort, as somebody 
working at that time in local government, because local governments are 
burdened with many unfunded Federal mandates. No Child Left Behind, for 
example, comes to mind.
  This legislation before us today, however, is not a simple extension 
of unfunded mandates. It is something else. Mr. Chairman, any lingering 
doubt about this week's Republican assault, which is orchestrated on 
the regulatory process as designed to benefit corporate interests, 
should be laid to rest with this bill.
  Agencies are already required to consult with any interested party 
during the rulemaking process through a robust public participation and 
comment period. This bill, however, would single out private sector 
special interests and give them special treatment and an unfair 
advantage by requiring agencies to consult with them before a rule is 
even proposed.
  The bill further subverts existing law by opening the door for 
opponents of regulation or delay to invalidate rules through frivolous 
litigation. Current law expressly prohibits the courts from blocking a 
new rule based on the advocacy of an agency's analysis. This bill would 
expand judicial review to give

[[Page H2073]]

for-profit special interests a new tool to tie up regulations with 
unnecessary litigation.
  I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that 
agencies are currently required by existing law and executive order to 
consider all regulatory alternatives to promote flexibility and to 
promulgate regulations based on a reasonable determination that the 
benefits, in fact, justify the costs. That is already in existing law.
  Agencies are also required to conduct cost-benefit analyses and 
increase public participation for all interested parties, not just 
corporate special interests. Of course, House Republicans also fail to 
acknowledge that the Obama administration has directed agencies to 
harmonize rulemaking across agencies and conduct a systematic review of 
existing regulations to reduce outdated or redundant rules.
  Mr. Chairman, if my Republican friends really want to do something 
meaningful about unfunded mandates, they could work with us to correct 
the historic failures of the Federal Government to meet its financial 
obligations to our cash-strapped State and local partners, rather than 
catering to special, big corporate interests with well-paid lobbyists.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding, Mr. 
Chairman, and I appreciate his leadership on the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee.
  He has only been in this institution for 3 years, but he brought with 
him, when he came, a heart of service that he has been applying his 
entire lifetime; and it is that heart of service that I think has 
enabled him to work in a bipartisan way across the aisle.
  I will say that it is not without a heavy heart, Mr. Chairman, that I 
hear folks talk about a Republican assault, a majority this, 
conservatives that; there are some things that happen in this 
institution that are party line events. There are things that happen in 
this institution that are Republicans driving in one way and Democrats 
driving in the other.
  But this is an openness bill today, and by its very introduction, Mr. 
Chairman--I have a copy of the bill here; it is available for anyone to 
read online--the very first thing they will see when they open up this 
piece of legislation are the men and women who came together to offer 
it.
  Now, one of those people is my good friend, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Lankford from Oklahoma; but so, too, is the 
gentlelady from California, Loretta Sanchez, who believes in this piece 
of legislation--not just believes it passing on the floor today, but 
believes in being a part of the process that drives this forward.

                              {time}  0945

  Yes, we heard from my friend, Virginia Foxx, Republican from North 
Carolina, but also among the original cosponsors bringing this 
legislation forward, Mike McIntyre, Democrat, from North Carolina.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about one thing and one thing only, and 
that is providing more information and more transparency to all the 
stakeholders in the process. There are things that are worth doing and 
there are things that are worth using the power of government to do, 
but if we are proud of what those things are, we should be proud of 
sharing that information.
  When you get in a car today, Mr. Chairman, there are airbags 
everywhere. I can't even count the number of airbags when I rent a car 
these days. Old cars that folks drive, they don't have them, but the 
new cars do. I don't know what it costs to put that airbag in. I don't 
know what it cost to promulgate that regulation. I would like to know. 
But I promise you that, if we were to look at those numbers, we would 
say it is worth it. It is worth it.
  Regulatory burdens on this economy--and we are seeing GDP revised 
down again today, Mr. Chairman--are undeniable. Maybe they are worth 
it, but the burden is undeniable. Let's just tell folks what that 
burden is, and then let's come together and decide whether or not it is 
something worth doing.
  This is not a partisan bill today, Mr. Chairman; this is a bipartisan 
bill. This isn't about hiding the ball today; this is about 
transparency. This bill is not about dividing folks; this is about, 
again, what my friend from Oklahoma has been about since the day he 
showed up in this institution, and that is bringing people together 
around tough challenges, but challenges that this institution can rise 
to do.
  I am very proud of the many, many hearings that have been held, the 
many, many hours of effort that have been invested, and I am pleased to 
support this legislation on the floor here today, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each 
side has remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 18 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Oklahoma has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most problematic provisions of this bill is 
the section that expands judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, also known as UMRA. UMRA currently allows a party to 
challenge in court whether an agency performed the written statement 
required under UMRA describing the agency's analysis. A court may 
require the agency to prepare the written statement if the agency fails 
to do so. The law explicitly provides, however, that a court cannot use 
the inadequacy of an agency's UMRA statement or an agency's failure to 
prepare a written statement as a basis to hold up a rule.
  Here is what the statute says:

       The inadequacy or failure to prepare such a statement, 
     including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate, 
     analysis, statement, or description or written plan shall not 
     be used as a basis for staying, enjoining, invalidating, or 
     otherwise affecting such agency rule.

  The bill would change the statute to allow courts to review the 
adequacy of an agency's analysis under UMRA and to allow rules to be 
delayed or invalidated based on the inadequacy of an agency's 
statement. This clearly contradicts the intent of the original statute.
  The administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy just 
yesterday saying that, if H.R. 899 were presented to the President in 
its current form, he would veto the legislation.
  The statement said:

       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, and, in addition, it would add layers of procedural 
     steps that would interfere with the agency's priority setting 
     and compliance with statutory mandates.

  There is another allegation that has been made that I want to 
address, and that is the allegation that there has been a tsunami of 
rules issued under President Obama. This is simply inaccurate. 
President Bush issued 14,387 rules in his first 4 years in office. 
President Obama issued 13,238 in his first term. That is over 1,000 
fewer rules than President Bush issued in the same period of time.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, agencies published 
the lowest numbers of rules in 2012 since GAO began keeping data in 
1997. GAO found that the first half of 2013 was also on pace to be 
another record low year. The Office of Management and Budget in its 
draft 2013 report to Congress on benefits and costs of Federal 
regulations compared rulemakings across the 4 years of the Clinton, 
Bush, and Obama presidencies. Rules issued in the first 4 years of 
President Obama's administration had a net benefit of approximately 
$159 billion. ``Net benefit'' means the benefits of the rule minus the 
cost. Rules issued in the first term of President Bush's administration 
had a net benefit of $60 billion, and rules under President Clinton's 
first term had a net benefit of $30 billion. That means that the rules 
under President Obama had a bigger net benefit than the Bush 
administration and the Clinton administration combined.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few brief comments. I 
yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have the opportunity to be able to just 
dialogue a little bit about some of the things we

[[Page H2074]]

just heard about, things like judicial review.
  It is a belief of many people on this side of the aisle and the other 
side of the aisle that agencies are not infallible. They do make 
mistakes at times, and there are times that an agency will make an 
estimate on a cost, and it is, let's say, $90 million, just under the 
$100 million threshold. And someone wants to challenge it and says, how 
did you do the math on that that you ended up just under the major rule 
threshold?
  There is a reason to be able to go back and evaluate some of these 
things and to have the opportunity to go through a judicial review so 
in a moment of judicial review there can be a conversation to say, 
let's check the math before these decisions are made to be able to 
evaluate, because there has been a large increase in major rules. And 
while I understand that around election time there was a slowdown of 
regulations that came up, if you look at the first 5 years of this 
administration, of their 13,000 rules that were promulgated, 330 of 
them are classified as major rules--330 of those, major rules--defined 
as having an estimated annual economic impact of $100 million or more.
  It is a very serious issue to be able to put that many new rules with 
that large of an impact. It does have a change. And while I understand 
that some would say this benefits to the economy, what has happened is, 
year after year for the last several years, CBO comes back and looks at 
our long-term economic forecast and gives a slower forecast.

  In 2014 again, they have come out and said that, in this current 
economy with what is happening, it is another slowdown and another over 
$1 trillion loss in our economy that CBO has estimated over the next 10 
years because the economy continues to slow down. We are just asking 
the question, is it possible? Because so many major regulations are 
coming out and no one has had a check on that.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from North 
Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
his leadership and for his passion.
  This is one of those areas, quite frankly, as we look at unfunded 
mandates, that is taking the power from Washington, D.C., and giving it 
back to the elected officials in our States, our county governments, 
and our cities.
  The gentleman from Virginia, from the other side, earlier said that 
certainly he supported this when he was a local official elected there 
in Virginia, and rightly so. Because I can share a personal story, Mr. 
Chairman, from a senator, Jim Davis, from my home State who was a 
county commissioner and now a State senator. I asked him, why do you 
have such a hard time balancing the budget here in the State? And he 
gave me two words: unfunded mandates.
  Why is that? Because we continue to pass regulation after regulation 
after regulation, send them down to the States and ask the States to 
deal with them. The States say, well, we don't have money to implement 
this. They send it even further, to the county governments. So what 
happens is that property taxes go up at the local level, State income 
taxes go up there, all because we believe that we know what is best 
here in Washington, D.C., on how to implement rules and regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that during the first term of the Obama 
administration we saw a 10 percent increase in regulatory budgets. Now, 
that is a 10 percent increase in regulatory budgets when the average 
American hardworking taxpayer saw their budgets go down.
  There is something wrong with this, Mr. Chairman. And as we start to 
look at this, there was a study in 2011--a study in 2011--that said, 
with each 5 percent reduction in regulatory process, you can create 1.2 
million jobs. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a problem with creating jobs 
here, and this is a commonsense solution to rein in what is happening 
here in Washington, D.C., and allow that control to go back to the 
States and local government.
  So the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is this: to vote against this is a 
vote that says that we know better how to do business here in 
Washington, D.C., than the elected officials in State, county, and 
local governments. I can tell you that the best decisions are made at 
those local and State levels. I think it is high time that we come back 
and roll it back in this simple process to make sure that these 
regulatory reforms and the unfunded mandates that accompany them truly 
are not a burden on those hardworking American taxpayers.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I would like to inquire as to whether the other side 
has additional speakers.
  Mr. LANKFORD. We do not, sir. We are prepared to close.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will close. I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to go back to the legislative 
history of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the law that would 
be amended by this bill today. The Senate report on the bill that was 
signed into law said:

       The primary purpose of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform 
     Act of 1995, is to start the process of redefining the 
     relationship between the Federal Government and State, local, 
     and tribal governments. In addition, the bill would require 
     an assessment of legislative and regulatory proposals on the 
     private sector. The bill accomplishes this purpose by 
     ensuring that the impact of legislative and regulatory 
     proposals on those governments and the private sector are 
     given full consideration in Congress and the executive branch 
     before they are acted upon.

  The bill we are considering today goes far beyond the purposes of the 
original law. This bill goes beyond simply ensuring that the Federal 
Government considers the potential impact of a regulation on State and 
local governments or the private sector. Instead, the bill would put 
the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of our own 
constituents. Something is wrong with that picture.
  Members should vote against this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
bill. It is a simple, straightforward bill that asks a couple of quick 
questions: Do the people of America work for the Federal Government, or 
does the Federal Government work for the people of America? It is a 
straightforward question. This bill requires that the Federal 
Government and every agency have a conversation with the people they 
regulate to make sure that they actually understand what they are doing 
when they regulate.
  I understand full well, there are plenty of well-meaning people here 
in Washington, D.C., who are serving our Nation faithfully, but they do 
not know every State in the country. They don't know every business in 
the country. That is not what they do full time. They manage here for 
the Federal Government full time, but they are given the responsibility 
to be able to promulgate rules and regulations that they may or may not 
have any idea even how that will be accomplished when they get there, 
or the real cost of that. The estimates that occasionally come up for 
the different costs we find out later are much, much higher than were 
ever estimated by a Federal agency.
  So this bill does a few things.
  In 1995, we said we are not going to put unfunded mandates on cities, 
States, and counties or tribes unless there is a compelling reason to 
do so, and then we could override and do that. This bill says that 
should be true of the American people as a whole, that we should not 
pour out some unfunded mandates across the entire economy unless there 
is some compelling reason to do so, and then Congress still has the 
authority to do that at that point, if needed.
  This also says there should be some sort of judicial review so if 
someone in some agency makes a mistake, which we all as humans do, 
there is an opportunity to be able to respond to that, and an outlet 
where they can go to get justification for that, rather than having to 
go back to the agency that created the rule to say, Would you please 
change it? They say, No, but you can appeal it to the person in the 
cubicle next to me, appeal it to them. They says let's go to an outside 
entity. That seems to be an American system, that when you have a 
difference of opinion, you have an opportunity to be able to resolve 
that with someone outside the system.

[[Page H2075]]

  This is an opportunity to reconnect the Federal Government back to 
the people that we are sent to represent and to say it is essential 
that we close the loopholes that exempt out some agencies, that we 
close the loopholes that allow agencies to move forward on putting down 
major regulations without evaluating those things, and we allow a 
distinct opportunity for the American people and their own government 
to have dialogue again and to say if we are going to resolve our 
differences on this and we are going to provide safety and security for 
people across the Nation, let's do it together in the least costly, 
least burdensome way possible.
  I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to stand with me 
to provide greater transparency and greater conversation to the 
American people and their own government.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 899

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandates 
     Information and Transparency Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is--
       (1) to improve the quality of the deliberations of Congress 
     with respect to proposed Federal mandates by--
       (A) providing Congress and the public with more complete 
     information about the effects of such mandates; and
       (B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after 
     focused deliberation on their effects; and
       (2) to enhance the ability of Congress and the public to 
     identify Federal mandates that may impose undue harm on 
     consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, and State, 
     local, and tribal governments.

     SEC. 3. PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE STUDIES ON 
                   POLICIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF 
                   GRANT AID.

       Section 202(g) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 602(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Additional studies.--At the request of any Chairman 
     or ranking member of the minority of a Committee of the 
     Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director shall 
     conduct an assessment comparing the authorized level of 
     funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of 
     carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal assistance 
     being imposed on State, local, or tribal governments 
     participating in the Federal assistance program concerned or, 
     in the case of a bill or joint resolution that authorizes 
     such sums as are necessary, an assessment of an estimated 
     level of funding compared to such costs.''.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT COSTS TO REFLECT 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRACTICE.

       Section 421(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 658(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``incur or'' 
     before ``be required''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``to spend'' 
     the following: ``or could forgo in profits, including costs 
     passed on to consumers or other entities taking into account, 
     to the extent practicable, behavioral changes,''.

     SEC. 5. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO 
                   INCLUDE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY INDEPENDENT 
                   REGULATORY AGENCIES.

       Paragraph (1) of section 421 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658) is amended by striking ``, but 
     does not include independent regulatory agencies'' and 
     inserting ``, except it does not include the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open 
     Market Committee''.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO REPLACE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
                   WITH OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY 
                   AFFAIRS.

       The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4; 
     2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 103(c) (2 U.S.C. 1511(c))--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Office of 
     Management and Budget'' and inserting ``Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs''; and
       (B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs'';
       (2) in section 205(c) (2 U.S.C. 1535(c))--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``OMB''; and
       (B) by striking ``Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget'' and inserting ``Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs''; and
       (3) in section 206 (2 U.S.C. 1536), by striking ``Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget'' and inserting 
     ``Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs''.

     SEC. 7. APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE POINT OF ORDER TO PRIVATE SECTOR 
                   MANDATES.

       Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and 
     inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or 424(b)(1)'' after ``section 
     424(a)(1)''.

     SEC. 8. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.

       Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1531) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES.

       ``(a) In General.--Each agency shall, unless otherwise 
     expressly prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal 
     regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments 
     and the private sector (other than to the extent that such 
     regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set 
     forth in law) in accordance with the following principles:
       ``(1) Each agency shall identify the problem that it 
     intends to address (including, if applicable, the failures of 
     private markets or public institutions that warrant new 
     agency action) as well as assess the significance of that 
     problem.
       ``(2) Each agency shall examine whether existing 
     regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed to, 
     the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and 
     whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified 
     to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively.
       ``(3) Each agency shall identify and assess available 
     alternatives to direct regulation, including providing 
     economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such 
     as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information 
     upon which choices can be made by the public.
       ``(4) If an agency determines that a regulation is the best 
     available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it 
     shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective 
     manner to achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, each 
     agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency, 
     predictability, the costs of enforcement and compliance (to 
     the government, regulated entities, and the public), 
     flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity.
       ``(5) Each agency shall assess both the costs and the 
     benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that 
     some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or 
     adopt a regulation, unless expressly prohibited by law, only 
     upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the 
     intended regulation justify its costs.
       ``(6) Each agency shall base its decisions on the best 
     reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and 
     other information concerning the need for, and consequences 
     of, the intended regulation.
       ``(7) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative 
     forms of regulation and shall, to the extent feasible, 
     specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
     behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
     adopt.
       ``(8) Each agency shall avoid regulations that are 
     inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other 
     regulations or those of other Federal agencies.
       ``(9) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to minimize 
     the costs of the cumulative impact of regulations.
       ``(10) Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple 
     and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the 
     potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such 
     uncertainty.
       ``(b) Regulatory Action Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `regulatory action' means any substantive action by an agency 
     (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates 
     or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or 
     regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking 
     and notices of proposed rulemaking.''.

     SEC. 9. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY 
                   SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 202 of the 
     Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by 
     law, before promulgating any general notice of proposed 
     rulemaking or any final rule, or within six months after 
     promulgating any final rule that was not preceded by a 
     general notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed 
     rulemaking or final rule includes a Federal mandate that may 
     result in an annual effect on State, local, or tribal 
     governments, or to the private sector, in the aggregate of 
     $100,000,000 or more in any 1 year, the agency shall prepare 
     a written statement containing the following:
       ``(1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking or final 
     rule, together with a reasonably detailed description of the 
     need for the proposed rulemaking or final rule and an 
     explanation of how the proposed rulemaking or final rule will 
     meet that need.
       ``(2) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of 
     the proposed rulemaking or final rule, including an 
     explanation of the manner in which the proposed rulemaking or 
     final rule is consistent with a statutory requirement and 
     avoids undue interference

[[Page H2076]]

     with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
     their governmental functions.
       ``(3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including 
     the underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the 
     proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the promotion of 
     the efficient functioning of the economy and private markets, 
     the enhancement of health and safety, the protection of the 
     natural environment, and the elimination or reduction of 
     discrimination or bias).
       ``(4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including 
     the underlying analysis, of costs anticipated from the 
     proposed rulemaking or final rule (such as the direct costs 
     both to the Government in administering the final rule and to 
     businesses and others in complying with the final rule, and 
     any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the 
     economy, private markets (including productivity, employment, 
     and international competitiveness), health, safety, and the 
     natural environment);
       ``(5) Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that 
     the agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably 
     feasible, of--
       ``(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate; 
     and
       ``(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal 
     mandate upon any particular regions of the Nation or 
     particular State, local, or tribal governments, urban or 
     rural or other types of communities, or particular segments 
     of the private sector.
       ``(6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of the 
     agency's prior consultation with the private sector and 
     elected representatives (under section 204) of the affected 
     State, local, and tribal governments.
       ``(B) A detailed summary of the comments and concerns that 
     were presented by the private sector and State, local, or 
     tribal governments either orally or in writing to the agency.
       ``(C) A detailed summary of the agency's evaluation of 
     those comments and concerns.
       ``(7) A detailed summary of how the agency complied with 
     each of the regulatory principles described in section 
     201.''.
       (b) Requirement for Detailed Summary.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 202 of such Act is amended by inserting ``detailed'' 
     before ``summary''.

     SEC. 10. ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.

       Section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1534) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and private 
     sector'' before ``input'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``, and impacted parties within the 
     private sector (including small business),'' after ``on their 
     behalf)'';
       (B) by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and 
     inserting ``Federal mandates''; and
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Guidelines.--For appropriate implementation of 
     subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and 
     regulations, the following guidelines shall be followed:
       ``(1) Consultations shall take place as early as possible, 
     before issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue 
     through the final rule stage, and be integrated explicitly 
     into the rulemaking process.
       ``(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of State, 
     local, and tribal officials and impacted parties within the 
     private sector (including small businesses). Geographic, 
     political, and other factors that may differentiate varying 
     points of view should be considered.
       ``(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and costs to assist 
     with these consultations. The scope of the consultation 
     should reflect the cost and significance of the Federal 
     mandate being considered.
       ``(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) seek out the views of State, local, and tribal 
     governments, and impacted parties within the private sector 
     (including small business), on costs, benefits, and risks; 
     and
       ``(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods of compliance 
     and potential flexibilities, and input on whether the Federal 
     regulation will harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws 
     in other levels of government.
       ``(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact of 
     regulations on the affected entities.
       ``(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of 
     comments by relevant parties but may not use those comments 
     as the sole method of satisfying the guidelines in this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 11. NEW AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OFFICE OF 
                   INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.

       Section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1538) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 
                   RESPONSIBILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide meaningful 
     guidance and oversight so that each agency's regulations for 
     which a written statement is required under section 202 are 
     consistent with the principles and requirements of this 
     title, as well as other applicable laws, and do not conflict 
     with the policies or actions of another agency. If the 
     Administrator determines that an agency's regulations for 
     which a written statement is required under section 202 do 
     not comply with such principles and requirements, are not 
     consistent with other applicable laws, or conflict with the 
     policies or actions of another agency, the Administrator 
     shall identify areas of non-compliance, notify the agency, 
     and request that the agency comply before the agency 
     finalizes the regulation concerned.
       ``(b) Annual Statements to Congress on Agency Compliance.--
     The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs annually shall submit to Congress, including the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform of the House of Representatives, a written report 
     detailing compliance by each agency with the requirements of 
     this title that relate to regulations for which a written 
     statement is required by section 202, including activities 
     undertaken at the request of the Director to improve 
     compliance, during the preceding reporting period. The report 
     shall also contain an appendix detailing compliance by each 
     agency with section 204.''.

     SEC. 12. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL 
                   REGULATIONS.

       The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4; 
     2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 209 as section 210; and
       (2) by inserting after section 208 the following new 
     section 209:

     ``SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL 
                   REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) Requirement.--At the request of the chairman or 
     ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall 
     conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal 
     regulation promulgated by an agency.
       ``(b) Report.--Each agency conducting a retrospective 
     analysis of existing Federal regulations pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall submit to the chairman of the relevant 
     committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report 
     containing, with respect to each Federal regulation covered 
     by the analysis--
       ``(1) a copy of the Federal regulation;
       ``(2) the continued need for the Federal regulation;
       ``(3) the nature of comments or complaints received 
     concerning the Federal regulation from the public since the 
     Federal regulation was promulgated;
       ``(4) the extent to which the Federal regulation overlaps, 
     duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal regulations, and, 
     to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental 
     rules;
       ``(5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions, 
     or other factors have changed in the area affected by the 
     Federal regulation;
       ``(6) a complete analysis of the retrospective direct costs 
     and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies 
     done outside the Federal Government (if any) estimating such 
     costs or benefits; and
       ``(7) any litigation history challenging the Federal 
     regulation.''.

     SEC. 13. EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       Section 401(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
     (2 U.S.C. 1571(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``sections 202 and 203(a)(1) and (2)'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1) 
     and (2), and 205(a) and (b)''; and
       (B) by striking ``only'' each place it appears;
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``section 202'' and 
     all that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     the following: ``section 202, prepare the written plan under 
     section 203(a)(1) and (2), or comply with section 205(a) and 
     (b), a court may compel the agency to prepare such written 
     statement, prepare such written plan, or comply with such 
     section.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``written statement or 
     plan is required'' and all that follows through ``shall not'' 
     and inserting the following: ``written statement under 
     section 202, a written plan under section 203(a)(1) and (2), 
     or compliance with sections 201 and 205(a) and (b) is 
     required, the inadequacy or failure to prepare such statement 
     (including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate, 
     analysis, statement, or description), to prepare such written 
     plan, or to comply with such section may''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those 
printed in House Report 113-362. Each such amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cummings

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 113-362.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H2077]]


       Strike section 5.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 492, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to strike 
section 5 of H.R. 899. My amendment would preserve the integrity of 
independent agencies.
  The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts independent 
agencies. The bill we are considering would remove that exemption. That 
would mean that these agencies would have to submit their rules to the 
Office of Management and Budget for review.
  Congress creates independent agencies to be just that, independent. 
Requiring these agencies to submit their rules for review by the White 
House, no matter who is President, would be inappropriate.
  Some of the agencies that would be impacted by this provision include 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, and the Federal Communications Commission.
  This amendment simply maintains the exemption for independent 
agencies that is current in law. I urge every Member of this body to 
support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, independent regulatory agencies impose 
significant costs on our economy and often impose Federal mandates on 
State and local governments and the private sector. The Securities and 
Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the 
Federal Communications Commission are just a few examples of agencies 
that impose regulations without consideration of the actual cost or 
impact on the public.
  Now, this bill does not prevent agencies from creating regulations. 
The amendment gives the impression that this will be a wild West, and 
all of these agencies will be limited. It only asks them to consider 
the cost and the impact of those regulations and to have some 
conversation with people on how it could be done less burdensome or 
less expensive.
  According to a 2011 Administrative Law Review article:

       Analysis conducted by independent regulatory agencies is 
     generally the minimum required by statute. In many instances, 
     the independent regulatory agencies appear to be issuing 
     major regulations without reporting any quantitative 
     information on benefits and costs.

  OMB's 2013 draft report to Congress on the benefits and costs of 
Federal regulations and unfunded mandates provides a limited view of 
the cost-benefit analyses conducted by a limited number of independent 
regulatory agencies. For major rules issued by agencies included in the 
report, more than 35 percent were issued without any cost-benefit 
analysis at all.
  CRS reports that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2012, 57 
major rules were issued by nine independent agencies, but none of those 
rules included monetized cost-benefit analyses, and less than 50 
percent provided any estimate as to costs at all.
  The cost-benefit analyses under UMRA are essential for a transparent 
and accountable regulatory system. Reporting on the analyses does 
nothing to compromise the independence of these agencies, and we know 
this because OMB already reports on whether or not several independent 
agencies are conducting the analyses--including the Federal Trade 
Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission.
  Requiring that these agencies are covered by UMRA does not require 
that OMB review or approve of the analyses, only that the agencies are 
accountable for considering the costs and the benefits of imposing 
unfunded mandates on State and local governments and the private 
sector.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. As I close, let me say this, Mr. Chairman. Again, these 
are independent agencies. Independent agencies could be required to do 
cost-benefit analysis without requiring rules to go through OMB. This 
bill allows the administrator of OIRA to hold up a rule if he or she 
determines the agency didn't comply. I would urge Members to vote in 
favor of my amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated before, it is entirely 
appropriate for independent agencies to have to also review the cost in 
the actual context of what they are accomplishing and the economy 
itself. That is an appropriate thing for every agency to do. We should 
count the costs before regulations are actually imposed on our economy. 
So I oppose this amendment. I have great respect for my colleague, but 
I have to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 113-362.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 13, line 6, strike ``and''.
       Page 14, line 16, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 14, after line 16, insert the following:
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Treatment of Other Impacted Parties.--Any opportunity 
     for consultation afforded to impacted parties within the 
     private sector under this section shall be afforded to 
     representatives of all other impacted parties.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 492, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment on 
behalf of myself and my good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Duckworth).
  H.R. 899 boasts an Orwellian title that attempts to deceive the 
public into believing that the Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act is simply an innocuous attempt to enhance 
transparency--rather than the subversive legislative assault on public 
health, safety, and environmental protections that it truly is.
  H.R. 899 is simply an effort to throw a wrench into the rulemaking 
process, ensuring that private industry is provided privileges and 
rights far above any other stakeholder in the regulatory process.
  In many respects, H.R. 899 represents the Mitt Romney principle on 
steroids, for it appears that in the minds of our friends on the other 
side of the aisle, not only is it a fact that ``corporations are 
people, my friend,'' but under this measure, Republicans appear to be 
embracing an ethos that treats corporations better than people.
  Regrettably, this bill provides private corporations with an unfair 
consultation advantage over every other stakeholder in the regulatory 
process. That is indefensible.
  Under this bill, Federal agencies would be required to consult with 
private industry ``before issuance of a proposed rulemaking,'' yet it 
does not afford the same level of consultation to average citizens who 
rely on agency rules to preserve and protect their health, welfare, and 
safety.
  There is no justification for enacting an irrational statutory 
framework that requires the Federal Government to consult with private 
firms, such as a large agribusiness firm, prior to imposing a rule that 
will impact that company, yet does not require consultation with public 
health experts, or everyday Americans who will be forced to live with 
the consequences of a given regulation.
  I cannot defend a regulatory framework that would provide big oil 
companies, for example, a guaranteed right to

[[Page H2078]]

weigh in before any drilling regulation is promulgated, but would not 
require equal consultation with public interest organizations, such as 
entities committed to protecting and preserving our Nation's 
environment and natural resources, or the communities that could be 
directly impacted by such activities.
  To be clear, I strongly support the rights of industry to have an 
opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules. It fosters more 
informed, quality rulemaking, and benefits both businesses and our 
broader society. Indeed, that is why our current administrative 
procedures mandate that a public comment process be conducted to allow 
any individual or corporation to participate and provide input and 
feedback in an equal, fair, and open process. That is current law.
  The amendment that Congresswoman Duckworth and I are proposing today 
would simply ensure that all participants in the rulemaking process be 
provided equal consultation rights with agencies. For example, as 
Ranking Member Cummings noted earlier, if the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture were to propose a public health rule affecting agribusiness 
in an effort to protect the health of everyday Americans, our amendment 
would ensure that not only the agribusinesses, but also food safety 
experts, children's health organizations, medical associations, and 
scientific entities would also be provided an opportunity to consult 
with USDA prior to the issuance of the proposed rule.
  I strongly urge all Members to support our commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chair, it may be a good moment to shine some facts 
into this debate. I agree that expanding the consultation requirements 
for the impacted parties is important. Those parties directed affected 
by the regulation should have an opportunity to be able to voice 
concerns about feasibility and offer sensible corrections from people 
with expertise from years of experience. That is a large part of what 
this bill does; when a regulation comes down, impacted individuals 
should be able to come to the table to be able to discuss what is the 
impact of this.
  This particular amendment is completely redundant. It requires that 
any opportunity for consultation afforded to impacted parties within 
the private sector under the section shall be afforded to 
representatives of all other impacted parties.
  Well, UMRA already defines the private sector as individuals, 
partnerships, associations, corporations, educational and nonprofit 
institutions, but it shall not include State, local, and tribal 
governments since State, local, and tribal governments are already 
covered in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the original one. So I 
have to ask the question: Who is left? If it already covers 
individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, educational and 
nonprofit institutions, State, local, and tribal governments, it covers 
everyone already.
  If you are impacted by legislation and by regulation, you should have 
the opportunity to respond to that. We completely agree.

                              {time}  1015

  It is important to note this is not the only opportunity to offer 
suggestions and critiques though. Those not directly regulated by the 
rule have an opportunity for input during the comment period as 
required by the Administrative Procedures Act in the executive order.
  This perception that somehow people are being locked out of the 
process is incorrect. It is the people that are impacted, though, that 
should have the first voice. That would be people impacted in the 
community, that would be people impacted in business, or any kind of 
government.
  For example, under current law, taxpayers and public workers are not 
required to be consulted prior to an agency proposing a rule that will 
put a Federal mandate on the States and local governments, a mandate 
that could require public entities to ship resources that could affect 
hiring decisions or a reduction in public services.
  Taxpayers, public workers, consumer groups, and anyone else who is 
interested--but not directly impacted--have that opportunity to provide 
input at notice and comment stage; but this amendment, however, appears 
to repeat the consultation requirement that H.R. 899 seeks to provide.
  Those Members who want impacted parties to have an early voice in 
development of regulations that impose burdensome mandates on the 
private sector ought to just vote for the bill. Adding a repetitive 
requirement creates ambiguity about the intent of Congress, and for 
that reason, I oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 90 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I don't quite understand the opposition 
of my friend from Oklahoma; if it is duplicative, then it is harmless. 
I think clarification to make sure that citizens have the same rights 
as special interests and corporations is actually a good thing to 
clarify. I don't think it adds ambiguity; I think it adds clarity, 
which may be why my good friend opposes it.
  I would also ask, at this time, a statement to every Member of 
Congress endorsing this amendment from the Coalition for Sensible 
Safeguards be entered into the Record.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                            Coalition for Sensible Safeguards,

                                                February 26, 2014.
       Dear Representative, The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards 
     (CSS), which includes more than 150 labor, environmental, 
     public health, scientific, consumer, financial reform, and 
     public interest groups, strongly opposes H.R. 899, the 
     dangerous and harmful ``Unfunded Mandates Information and 
     Transparency Act of 2013.'' This proposal would undermine our 
     nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental 
     standards as well as new financial protections. Given that we 
     have experienced multiple health and safety disasters in 
     communities and workplaces across the country in recent 
     years, it is the wrong time to thwart the progress of 
     necessary public protections.
       While CSS strongly urges members to vote no on H.R. 899, 
     CSS encourages members to support the amendments offered 
     below:
       Amendment #1 sponsored by Congressman Cummings (MD): This 
     amendment strikes section 5 of the bill, which would 
     eliminate the current exemption from the Unfunded Mandate 
     Reform Act for certain independent agencies. This crucial 
     amendment would ensure that agencies that Congress designated 
     to be independent of the Executive Branch remain so. Further, 
     the amendment would ensure that the important regulations of 
     these agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are 
     not subject to this legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and 
     unfunded requirements and can be adopted in a timely and 
     efficient manner.
       Amendment #4 sponsored by Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (TX): 
     This amendment adds Section 14 to the bill to clarify that 
     the requirements of UMRA as amended by this Act do not apply 
     if a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of 
     the regulatory action exceed its costs. This common-sense 
     amendment makes clear that regulations whose benefits to 
     public health and safety exceed the costs to regulated 
     industries, thereby making them good public investments, are 
     not legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and unfunded 
     requirements and can be adopted in a timely and efficient 
     manner.
       Amendment #5 sponsored by Congressman Connolly (VA): This 
     amendment ensures that other impacted entities, such as 
     public interest organizations, are provided any opportunity 
     for consultation afforded to the private sector under the 
     Act. This commonsense amendment levels the playing field to 
     allow public interest organizations the same privilege and 
     access that the legislation only affords to the business 
     community and ensures that the regulatory process is fair and 
     open to all stakeholders in an equal manner.
           Sincerely,
     Katherine McFate,
       President and CEO, Center for Effective Government; Co-
     chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
     Robert Weissman,
       Persident, Public Citizen; Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible 
     Safeguards.

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that I oppose 
in government. Duplication is one of those. Clarity is best done when 
it is clear and it is said one time and it is consistent.
  It is already very clear. Individuals, partnerships, associations, 
corporations, and educational and nonprofit

[[Page H2079]]

institutions are included in this. All those who are impacted can step 
up in front of an agency and say: we will be impacted.
  You are a person; you are a citizen; you are an individual. You have 
an opportunity to be able to come and join into that conversation.
  We believe strongly that you should have the opportunity, if you are 
impacted, to get your voice heard. Again, the Federal Government works 
for people; people don't work for the Federal Government. So when you 
are impacted, you should also have a voice as well.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chair, I strongly support efforts to make sure 
that government regulations are not overly burdensome and do not 
needlessly harm business growth.
   In fact the very first piece of legislation I introduced--the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act--sought to help small businesses lower 
the costs of complying with federal regulations.
   But I am very concerned that H.R. 899 goes beyond well intentioned 
efforts to make the regulatory process more accessible to stakeholders, 
and instead seeks to give big businesses a voice so loud that it drowns 
out American consumers.
   In particular, Section 10 of the bill, which would allow the private 
sector exclusive early access to the rulemaking process, will give just 
one stakeholder unnecessary and unfair influence.
   Increasing stakeholder input in the rulemaking process is a worthy 
goal, and businesses should certainly be a part of that, but we can't 
govern only on behalf of one stakeholder.
   Our government should work for all Americans, not just some.
   And we have a responsibility to balance the priorities of our 
society as a whole with the interests of business.
   When we're talking about a rule that governs whether moms and dads 
in Illinois can have peace of mind that the food their children eat 
won't make them sick, or that a worker at a manufacturing facility in 
my district doesn't have to choose between a paycheck and their 
workplace safety--the stakes could not be higher.
   The concerns of these Americans should not matter less than those of 
corporations seeking to maximize their profits. They deserve a seat at 
the table as well.
   This amendment seeks to level the playing field and improve 
transparency for all Americans.
   It would simply give individuals the same rights provided to 
corporations under this bill.
   I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this common sense, good 
government amendment that will stand up for the rights of all 
Americans.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 113-362.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 14. INAPPLICABILITY OF UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT IF 
                   COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS SHOWS BENEFITS OF 
                   REGULATORY ACTION EXCEED COSTS.

        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-
     4; 2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.), as amended by this Act, shall not 
     apply to a regulatory action if a cost-benefit analysis 
     demonstrates the benefits of the regulatory action exceed the 
     costs of the regulatory action.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 492, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman for the time 
and to the two managers of this particular legislation on the floor, 
particularly to the ranking member for his leadership, and simply ask 
the question: For those of us who have served in this body the time 
when the unfunded mandate's original legislation was passed, what 
possible addition this particular amendment can have?
  Let me first start off by saying that I appreciate the good 
intentions of work that is brought to the floor of the House; but I 
want to remind my colleagues that, as we speak, the growing numbers of 
the uninsured continue to rise, and the emergency unemployment 
insurance has not been passed by this body.
  In fact, not passing unemployment insurance is an unfunded mandate. 
For what we do is we say to the States that 1.3-1.5 million-plus, 
including family members, of individuals who have worked and who are 
out every day looking for work are no longer the responsibility of 
anyone here in the Federal Government.
  After the States have maxed out on their 26 weeks, we simply throw 
these people into the streets. I would imagine that States and 
nonprofits may have to address their needs through homeless shelters, 
through food banks, soup kitchens, and other municipality resources 
that they can scramble together.
  It is interesting that we are here discussing an unfunded mandate. As 
we speak, millions of Americans are suffering because we have refused 
to address an important issue.
  In addition, the minimum wage has thrown throngs of individuals into 
the claws of desperation on the lack of raising it, of which I have 
signed a petition--a discharge petition to do so.
  As I rise, I want to acknowledge my amendment, which specifically 
indicates that, if the benefits exceed the costs, then this industry or 
the industries or this particular provision would not be covering. It 
clarifies that the provisions of the bill do not apply if a cost-
benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of a regulatory action 
exceed its costs.
  My amendment improves the bill by ensuring that regulatory actions 
needed to protect the public health, safety, and environment can be 
promulgated and implemented and not be stymied by dilatory tactics.
  The Jackson Lee amendment is strongly supported by the Coalition for 
Sensible Safeguards, an organization comprised of more than 150 public 
health, scientific, consumer, environmental, labor, financial, and 
public interest groups.
  Let me say something that I think my colleagues need to know that is 
distinctive about this amendment. There is a requirement that Federal 
agencies consult with private corporations.
  I heard my good friend say that the Federal Government is for the 
people, not the other way around. But guess what? There is no 
requirement for consultation with stakeholders or the public before 
proposing any new rules. How hypocritical is that? I must consult with 
private corporations--many of us represent them. We appreciate the work 
they create--but none of the stakeholders need to be consulted with.
  So I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you I am all for a cost-
benefit analysis, but the challenge of doing a cost-benefit analysis 
comes down to who is doing the cost-benefit analysis and what are they 
putting into it.
  There have been multiple times that we have had conversations about a 
cost-benefit analysis, and there has been a push back to say: well, 
let's go back and check the math on that later and see if we actually 
got the benefit that was proposed that we will receive for that 
benefit.
  A benefit analysis, in particular, is kind of under scrutiny by 
academics, even under the Obama administration. As an example, the EPA 
issued a new standard for mercury emissions and reported that benefits 
of the rule were up to $90 billion a year, far above their $10 billion 
a year cost.

[[Page H2080]]

  Less than .01 of that $90 billion in benefits was attributable to 
actual reduction in mercury, though; instead, nearly all the benefits 
came from reductions in fine particles, a pollutant that was not even 
the purposed target of the regulation itself. Fine particle cobenefits 
accounted for two-thirds of the benefits of the economically 
significant rules in 2010.
  This administration has padded the benefit analysis with private 
benefits. In the fuel economy standards, for instance, for cars and 
light trucks, nearly 90 percent of the $338 billion in lifetime 
benefits were benefits to consumers, such as reduced fuel consumption, 
and--how about this one--shorter refueling times.
  Private benefits account for 92 percent of the benefits in energy 
efficiency standards for washing machines and 70 percent of the 
benefits in energy efficiency standards for refrigerators.
  Essentially, the private benefit accounting is a claim that depriving 
consumers of preferred choices will make them better off because 
benefits like fuel savings are worth more to consumers than consumers 
actually realized.
  To exclude regulations from an UMRA analysis, based on faulty and 
misleading benefits analysis, would only encourage distortion. Further, 
the point of UMRA is to identify burdensome new mandates for the 
parties that have to bear the burden.
  You see, that company bears the burden. That cost gets passed on 
directly to consumers. So this ``private benefits''--that you are going 
to get more benefit than you thought you would ever get or will ever 
see--doesn't offset the cost they do see coming out of their paycheck 
when gasoline is more expensive, groceries are more expensive, and 
electricity if more expensive.
  Often, parties who pay the cost of these regulations are not the same 
parties that actually enjoy the benefits. Even if a rule is predicted 
to have a net benefit, impacted entities should be made aware of 
sizable new burdens imposed by Federal mandates.
  For this reason, I do oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 90 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me quickly say that, in the 
previous bill, it was well noted that there were exemptions dealing 
with constitutional issues and civil rights issues; so my amendment is 
in track, on line with the original bill that gave exemptions.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want us to be able to move forward on 
this bill. I want the American people to know that their government 
serves them and that individuals are able to be able to speak back to 
their own government when their government is imposing a regulation on 
them.

  I think that is entirely reasonable for any affected party to be able 
to engage in conversation with their own government. I think it is 
entirely appropriate.
  This is long overdue. The 1995 UMRA bill was written with large 
loopholes that exempted out agencies, exempted out different entities. 
It created an environment where it is beneficial to the agency to 
distort the cost. Let's clear that.
  Let's just get back to doing what we should do, not people trying to 
sneak in rules, not people trying to sneak in a different cost-benefit 
analysis. Let's just have conversation again between the American 
people and the government that they are in charge of.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
analysis; but let me offer to him that, first of all, this particular 
legislation will be subject to a veto threat because, as the President 
has noted, there is already a robust, analytical, and procedural 
requirement. I agree there should be that, and we already have it.
  The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards has indicated that the Jackson 
Lee amendment is a commonsense amendment that makes clear that 
regulations whose benefits to public health safety exceed the cost of 
regulated industries are good public investments.
  This amendment is a necessary amendment. The Jackson Lee amendment 
says if it is a good public investment, and it helps in order to 
clarify some of the untoward provisions of this legislation that will 
require an interaction with a private corporation, but never talking to 
the public.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are for the people, they should at least be there 
to be inquired of: What do you think?
  And finally, let us end the unfunded mandate of not passing 
unemployment insurance extension and not lifting the minimum wage. That 
is an unfunded mandate.
  I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment 
because it clarifies and it puts the people first. I join with my 
colleague. This is a place for people. We are the ones--the people who 
run this government. Give them an opportunity to consult under this 
legislation. Support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward.
  The Jackson Lee amendment improves the bill by clarifying that the 
provisions of the bill do not apply if a cost-benefit analysis 
demonstrates that the benefits of a regulatory action exceed its costs.
  My amendment improves the bill by ensuring that regulatory actions 
needed to protect the public health, safety, and environment can be 
promulgated and implemented and not be stymied by dilatory tactics and 
unnecessary delays.
  That is why the Jackson Lee amendment is strongly supported by the 
Coalition on Sensible Safeguards, an organization comprised of more 
than 150 public health, scientific, consumer, environmental, labor, 
financial reform, and public interest groups.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 899, the ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act'' (UMRA), 
would erect new barriers to slow down the regulatory process and 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 
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), with the exception of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Open Market Committee. 
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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.
  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 advance notice and 
opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations.
  Section 10 also requires 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 
gives corporations an unfair advantage over other stakeholders in the 
development of regulatory proposals.
  During consideration of this bill by the Committee, Representatives 
Gerry Connolly and Tammy Duckworth offered an amendment that would have 
evened the playing field by requiring that: ``Any opportunities or 
rights afforded to a corporation under this section shall also be 
afforded to any interested individual.''
  The Connolly-Duckworth amendment was rejected.
  Section 11 would codify the role of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in reviewing agency regulations and require 
that if the OIRA Administrator finds that an agency did not comply with 
UMRA's requirements, the Administrator must request that the agency 
comply before the regulation is finalized.
  Section 12 would require that, ``at the request of the chairman or 
ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of the House 
of Representatives or Senate, an agency shall conduct a retrospective 
analysis of an existing Federal regulation issued by an agency.''
  This provision would require agencies to divert resources toward 
conducting these analyses and away from fulfilling their missions.
  Mr. Chair, as the Coalition on Sensible Safeguards says of the 
Jackson Lee amendment:


[[Page H2081]]


       This common-sense amendment makes clear that regulations 
     whose benefits to the public health and safety exceed the 
     costs to regulated industries, thereby making them good 
     public investments, are not legislation that is wasteful or 
     unnecessary[.]

  I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

                             Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

                                                 February 26, 2014
       Dear Representative, The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards 
     (CSS), which includes more than 150 labor, environmental, 
     public health, scientific, consumer, financial reform, and 
     public interest groups, strongly opposes H.R. 899, the 
     dangerous and harmful ``Unfunded Mandates Information and 
     Transparency Act of 2013.'' This proposal would undermine our 
     nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental 
     standards as well as new financial protections. Given that we 
     have experienced multiple health and safety disasters in 
     communities and workplaces across the country in recent 
     years, it is the wrong time to thwart the progress of 
     necessary public protections.
       While CSS strongly urges members to vote no on H.R. 899, 
     CSS encourages members to support the amendments offered 
     below:
       Amendment #1 sponsored by Congressman Cummings (MD): This 
     amendment strikes section 5 of the bill, which would 
     eliminate the current exemption from the Unfunded Mandate 
     Reform Act for certain independent agencies. This crucial 
     amendment would ensure that agencies that Congress designated 
     to be independent of the Executive Branch remain so. Further, 
     the amendment would ensure that the important regulations of 
     these agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are 
     not subject to this legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and 
     unfunded requirements and can be adopted in a timely and 
     efficient manner.
       Amendment #4 sponsored by Congresswoman Jackson Lee (TX): 
     This amendment adds Section 14 to the bill to clarify that 
     the requirements of UMRA as amended by this Act do not apply 
     if a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of 
     the regulatory action exceed its costs. This common-sense 
     amendment makes clear that regulations whose benefits to 
     public health and safety exceed the costs to regulated 
     industries, thereby making them good public investments, are 
     not legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and unfunded 
     requirements and can be adopted in a timely and efficient 
     manner.
       Amendment #5 sponsored by Congressman Connolly (VA): This 
     amendment ensures that other impacted entities, such as 
     public interest organizations, are provided any opportunity 
     for consultation afforded to the private sector under the 
     Act. This commonsense amendment levels the playing field to 
     allow public interest organizations the same privilege and 
     access that the legislation only affords to the business 
     community and ensures that the regulatory process is fair and 
     open to all stakeholders in an equal manner.
           Sincerely,

                                             Katherine McFate,

     President and CEO, Center for Effective Government, Co-chair, 
                                Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

                                              Robert Weissman,

                                         President, Public Citizen
                      Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-362 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Cummings of Maryland.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cummings

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 224, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               AYES--185

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     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
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     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.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     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

                               NOES--224

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     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
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     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
     Matheson
     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
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

[[Page H2082]]


     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Calvert
     Cramer
     Fortenberry
     Gosar
     Hinojosa
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Maloney, Sean
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Runyan
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1055

  Messrs. MULLIN, HUDSON, KING of New York, OLSON, RIBBLE, McKEON, and 
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. ELLISON, MAFFEI, and GARAMENDI changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 86, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Chair, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 86. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 216, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               AYES--194

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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)
     Davis, Danny
     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
     Gibson
     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.
     Jones
     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)
     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
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     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

                               NOES--216

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     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
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     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
     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
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     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
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Calvert
     Cramer
     Fortenberry
     Gosar
     Hinojosa
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Peters (MI)
     Runyan
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (WA)
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1059

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 232, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               AYES--180

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     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
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack

[[Page H2083]]


     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     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

                               NOES--232

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     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
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     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
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     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
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Calvert
     Cramer
     Fortenberry
     Gosar
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Runyan
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1104

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). There being no further amendments, 
under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 899) to 
provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing Federal 
mandates, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
492, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Garcia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 899 to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 14. EXCEPTION FOR REGULATORY ACTIONS AFFECTING VETERANS, 
                   SENIORS, CONSUMERS, AND COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY 
                   NATURAL DISASTERS.

       The amendments made by this Act shall not apply to 
     regulatory actions if they have the effect of--
       (1) providing hiring preferences and jobs for veterans;
       (2) protecting patient safety in hospitals and nursing 
     homes;
       (3) lowering the overall cost of health care, including 
     out-of-pocket costs for consumers; or
       (4) protecting communities from natural disasters and 
     helping them rebuild in the event of a natural disaster.

  Mr. LANKFORD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, this is a final amendment to the bill. This 
will not delay the bill. This will not kill the bill. This will not 
send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will proceed 
immediately to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, we should all be able to agree that just as it is absurd 
to say that all regulations are good, it is absurd to say that all 
regulations are bad. Unfortunately, this bill does just that.
  It assumes that all regulations are bad; it weakens or delays them. 
Even those that advance important bipartisan priorities are going to be 
hurt. That is why my amendment is so important. It will ensure that 
this bill does not create unnecessary hurdles in several important 
areas, including those that help veterans find jobs, keep health care 
safe and affordable, and rebuild communities after natural disasters.
  Mr. Speaker, there is probably no issue where there is more 
bipartisan support than in the need to support our Nation's veterans. 
Those who have risked and sacrificed more than anyone else deserve for 
us to help keep them safe: veterans, veterans like my constituent 
George Martinez, who found a job through the program for Vocational 
Rehabilitation and Employment, an important program overseen by the VA.
  This bill will unfortunately weaken or delay regulations that help 
veterans like George find jobs when they leave the service. It would 
have delayed an important regulation that was finalized last year, a 
regulation that requires contractors to set goals for hiring veterans 
and list job openings so that veterans can apply for them.
  According to estimates, this regulation could ultimately find 
additional employment for 200,000 veterans. With unemployment for 
veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan being at almost 10 percent, we 
should not be delaying this kind of regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment would also keep the bill from creating 
unnecessary hurdles on regulations that protect patient safety. This 
bill would unnecessarily create hurdles for regulations that protect 
patient safety in hospitals and nursing homes, and lower out-of-pocket 
costs of health care.
  These are especially important issues in my home State of Florida 
where 70,000 nursing home residents live, more than almost any other 
State in the country. These are our parents, they are our loved ones 
who should receive the best care possible in their latter years. That 
is why we must ensure that nursing homes remain a safe place of rest 
and care for our seniors and remain an affordable option for those

[[Page H2084]]

who need them. That is exactly what my amendment will do.
  Finally, this amendment will ensure that the bill does not create 
unnecessary obstacles for regulations that help protect and rebuild 
communities after natural disasters. In south Florida, we are all too 
familiar with the devastating effects of hurricanes and natural 
disasters when they strike. Rebuilding communities in their aftermath 
can take years, as my constituents in Homestead know all too well. That 
is why we need to move forward with my amendment. We need to have an 
amendment that ensures this bill does not weaken or delay regulations 
that facilitate the recovery and rebuilding efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when we face so many important issues, we here 
in Congress need to come together and do what is right. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' to ensure that we support unemployed 
veterans, keep health care safe and affordable, and protect our 
communities from natural disasters.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, this bill assumes one simple thing: that 
regulators are not infallible, they are just people. We believe that 
the Nation will not fall apart if Washington doesn't have more and more 
growing power. We believe that this Nation became strong because the 
Federal Government had limited power. You see, I believe and we believe 
the American people aren't looking for much from us; they just want the 
unfunded mandates to stop. Someone in Washington decides they have a 
good idea and suddenly everyone has to pay for their new good idea.
  It seems obvious that before a major rule is put into place, the 
regulators should actually have a consultation with the people that 
will be affected to see if there is a better way to do the same thing.
  It was 3 years ago that I walked into this Chamber. Many people know 
I don't come from a political background. I have served in churches, 
where, of course, there are no politics. I can tell you that the 
American people do not want this city to tell them what to do. They 
want this city to protect their rights and leave them alone.
  As a new Representative, I was surprised that the vast majority of 
businesses that I interacted with didn't come to me asking for 
something; they came and said, how can you make this stop? Thousands of 
small regulations are coming every day. In fact, I am sure everyone 
read the Federal Register today. There is a new regulation that came 
out today that decreases the size of an orange. You cannot be an orange 
in America unless the Department of Agriculture tells you that you are 
an orange, and there is a new regulation today defining an orange.
  There are also 330 major rules that have come out in the last few 
years that increase and have an impact on the economy of over $100 
million each. The American people are fed up with Washington, not 
because we can get nothing done, but because we are already doing too 
much.

                              {time}  1115

  Every day, people wake up to a new regulation. They can't wait to 
read the Federal Register to see what happened to their business and 
their life last night.
  The opposition to this bill seems to be a fear that it will make the 
government work harder. Our fear is that the government is already 
making the American people's work harder every single day. People are 
worried about how to be able to pay for things, and it is slowing down 
the economy.
  Every mandate that is passed, the economy slows down even more. In 
fact, the CBO once again this year, just weeks ago, laid out their 
forecast for the next 10 years, that the economy is going to continue 
to slow down even more.
  Listen, the prevailing attitude in this town that Washington knows 
best has to stop. It is the responsibility of the States and the Nation 
to carry out their own wishes. It is not the responsibility of the 
States and the people to carry out the wishes of Washington, DC.
  A lot of people all over this Nation can make good decisions, and 
this perception that Washington is smarter than everyone else is 
absolutely not true.
  I come from a place that many in this town call flyover country. It 
may surprise you that planes actually land in flyover country. And when 
you get off the plane, do you know what you find? You find smart 
people. People who balance their budgets, serve their neighbors, and 
love their kids.
  They are not helpless. Right when they finally get their budget to 
balance or get their family back in place, Washington has a new plan 
for their budget.
  When the President said in his State of the Union that, ``The shift 
to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require 
tough choices along the way,'' many people didn't realize that those 
tough choices would be on their own budgets.
  In my State, electricity prices are going up. One of the electricity 
producers faces new compliance costs of over $1,500 per meter--per 
meter--simply because of a new aesthetic air quality regulation. It is 
not dealing with health. It is just dealing with aesthetic air quality 
regulations by this administration.
  When families try to figure out their paycheck and why it is not 
going as far anymore, they should ask the question: Why does gas cost 
more? Why does electricity cost more? Why does corn cost more? Why does 
beef cost more? Why does health care cost more? Why are local taxes 
going up? And why is insurance costing more?
  It is not the evil capitalists on Wall Street. It is the oceans of 
new regulations that are taking every spare dime from Americans' 
budgets because someone here in Washington thinks they know better.
  Listen, whether it is a farm or whether it is on an energy platform 
or whether it is this Chamber that passed a bill 2 years ago straight 
down a party-line vote that told every American that they could not 
pick the health care they wanted, they had to pick the one Washington 
approved; they couldn't have the same doctor, they had to pick one that 
Washington approved; they couldn't pay what they chose to because they 
have to go to the hospital that Washington chose--by the way, the costs 
are going to go up as well because Washington put a new tax on medical 
devices, like a dental crown, a knee replacement, or a pacemaker, so 
right when they are getting hit with medical bills, they are also going 
to get hit with a new tax as well. What a great idea.
  The problem is this government has grown and grown over decades. It 
is time to turn this around. Now is the moment to give the American 
people back what they need back, that is, freedom from the ongoing 
regulations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 218, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               AYES--192

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia

[[Page H2085]]


     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     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
     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
     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

                               NOES--218

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     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
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     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
     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
     Rice (SC)
     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
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Calvert
     Cramer
     Deutch
     Fortenberry
     Gosar
     Johnson (GA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     Pastor (AZ)
     Runyan
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1124

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 89 I was delayed getting 
to the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CUMMINGS. 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 234, 
noes 176, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               AYES--234

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gardner
     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
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--176

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     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
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)

[[Page H2086]]


     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     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--20

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Calvert
     Cramer
     Deutch
     Fortenberry
     Gosar
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Rigell
     Runyan
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1131

  Mr. CARDENAS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 86 on the Cummings amendment 
on H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 87 on the Connolly amendment on H.R. 899, I am not 
recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 88 on the Jackson Lee amendment on H.R. 899, I am not 
recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 89 on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions on 
H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On rollcall No. 90 on passage of H.R. 899, I am not recorded because 
I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''

                          ____________________