Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2014

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Earlier this week, we had a declaration that this week would be ``stop government abuse'' week. My colleagues on the other side called for us to commemorate this week by the introduction of draconian anti- safety legislation that would allow businesses to declare war on the rules that protect Americans, including babies, children, and the elderly. That is why, Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2804, the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency Act of 2014, also known as the so-called ``ALERRT Act.''

The ALERRT Act is a continuation of the same Republican obstruct at all costs paradigm that led to the sequester and to the shutdown of the Federal Government. This race to the bottom approach to the regulatory process is wasteful and dangerous, and it prioritizes profits over protecting Americans.

Although the ALERRT Act purports to ease the burden of regulations on American businesses, it would not create a single job, grow the economy or help any small business to thrive, nor does it address serious issues--the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, pay equity or immigration reform--that would help so many American workers and businesses. Instead, the only purpose of this bill is to straitjacket the same rulemaking process that protects countless Americans every day.

Title I of the bill imposes a 6-month moratorium on rules. The rulemaking process is already transparent, deliberative, and exhaustively inclusive of the views of small businesses and other interested parties.

Adding an additional 6 months to this process would do little except create uncertainty and increase compliance costs.

Instead of cutting through red tape, title II of the bill would add over 60 additional procedural and analytical requirements to the rulemaking process. This is yet another clear message that this bill would lengthen, not shorten or streamline, the rulemaking process, thus undermining the regulatory certainty and predictability that small businesses rely on to make long-term decisions.

In case the first two titles didn't adequately convey the message that Republicans are dead serious about helping deep-pocketed interests create regulatory mischief and confusion instead of offering serious solutions, titles III and IV would authorize virtually any party under the sun to challenge a proposed rule or intervene in litigation in Federal court no matter their connection, or lack thereof, to the issue.

Make no mistake. This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It would jeopardize critical public health and safety regulatory protections and undermine the very small businesses it claims to protect.

By giving a handout to well-funded organizations to challenge proposed rules, consent decrees, and settlement agreements at every opportunity, the ALERRT Act would stack the deck against the public interest and the American taxpayer.

And who would be harmed by this deregulatory train wreck? Every American who wants to be able to breathe fresh air and who wants to drink clean water; every mother who wants safe formula for her baby and cribs that don't collapse on the baby in the middle of the night; and every small business competing for an edge in a marketplace dominated by large, well-funded competitors. And the list goes on and on and on.

I hope you will join me in my observation of stop government abuse by Republicans week and my opposition to the ALERRT Act.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mining, construction work, manufacturing, those are the kinds of livelihoods that have made this country a great nation, people being able to go to work with a lunchbox in hand and work hard every day, make a decent wage.

By the way, $7.25 an hour for a full-time worker would equate to about $14,500 a year. That is just simply not enough for a working person to raise a family and take care of that family. They need help when they make $7.25 an hour. They would need help from the government if they couldn't rely on friends and relatives for support.

So that is a shame, in this day and time, where a person working a manufacturing job, or even a job in a mine or on a construction site, would be making $7.25 an hour.

We should, perhaps, Madam Chair, be paying attention to income generators such as that kind of legislation, as opposed to legislation like H.R. 2804, which would simply make it difficult to protect those workers in those unsafe occupations like mining, like construction work, like manufacturing, keeping the work site, the job place safe. Regulations are what do that.

With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, oh, how I wish that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle cared as much about America's workers as they do about America's big businesses.

Oh, how I wish that they cared more to let a minimum wage bill come to the floor, where I believe that most Members of the House of Representatives would find it within their hearts to realize that $7.25, you just can't make it on that without help. Everyone who goes out and works hard every day should be able to be paid a fair living wage and be able to support themselves and their family.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the majority deliberately downplays the benefits of regulation and exaggerates the cost of regulation, when in fact, the benefits of regulation far exceed the costs, whether those benefits are defined in monetary terms or in terms of promoting values like protecting public health and safety, and ensuring civil rights and human dignity.

The explosion that occurred down in Texas not too long ago that wiped out an entire town, I believe it was a fertilizer plant. Many lives lost. If there had been adequate legislation and adequate regulation to protect those people and the workers in the plant, then those folks would still be here today.

What we are doing with this legislation is preventing the promulgation of the kinds of rules that would protect the health and safety of people throughout America, not just workers, but people who have to eat, people who have to drink, people who have to breathe. The benefits of regulation far outweigh the costs.

A 2012 draft of the Office of Management and Budget report to Congress on the costs and benefits of regulations concluded that the net benefits of regulation promulgated through the third fiscal year of the Obama administration have exceeded $91 billion.

This amount, which includes not only monetary savings, but also lives saved and injuries prevented, is more than 25 times the net benefits through the third fiscal year of the previous administration, and these are important points that I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle like to omit from their analysis.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman speaks eloquently as a lawyer, and he makes excellent points.

Regulations do cost. So out of a $15 trillion gross domestic product, $1.8 trillion dedicated for regulatory expenses which protect lives--I can't put a value on one human life--but tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people are dying because of unsafe conditions on the job. It is certainly worth $1.7 trillion out of $15 trillion in a year.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Madam Chair, my colleague from Alabama said that we all need to come together to find real solutions to create jobs. I submit that one way that we could create jobs, in addition to making sure that we have equal pay for equal work and that we increase the minimum wage to a living wage, another way to do that is through immigration reform.

The Chamber of Commerce and small businesses everywhere have come together in support of comprehensive immigration reform. Why? Because it creates jobs.

David Park, the cofounder and creator of Job Creators Alliance, wrote in 2012:

Immigration reform is key to spurring innovation and

getting the economy back on track. I am a small business

owner who realizes the role legal immigrants play in creating

new jobs. As founder and CEO of a boutique merchant bank, I

have started or acquired nearly 30 small and midsize

companies, creating hundreds of jobs for Americans across the

country. I am also an immigrant and an example of how highly

skilled immigrants educated in the United States can drive

job creation right here.

So immigration reform, Madam Chair, is a job creator. We can't seem to get an immigration bill--which, by the way, has been passed by the Senate. We can't get it heard by this Congress. We cannot bring a bill to the floor that would pass the House that would result in comprehensive immigration reform. We cannot bring a bill to the floor of the House that would provide for a raise for Americans who work for $7.25 an hour, full-time. $14,500 a year is simply not enough to feed the family and take care of one's self. We can't get job-creating bills that would stimulate our economy by providing for dollars to go towards transportation and towards repairing and enhancing our infrastructure. Instead, we get caught up on messaging bills like the achieving less excess in regulation and requiring transparency act of 2014, also known as the ALERRT Act.

I oppose this bill for numerous reasons, the most important of which is that it would jeopardize critical public health and safety regulatory protections. For example, the bill requires agencies to consider potential costs and benefits associated with proposed and final rules, notwithstanding any other provisions of law. This supermandate would effectively trump all other statutes--such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act--that prohibit or limit the use of cost information in setting health and safety standards.

In addition, title II of the bill would require agencies and Federal courts to consider whether a rule has ``significant adverse effects on . . . the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.'' The practical effect, Madam Chair, of this definition is that it will require agencies and the courts to consider the business and regulatory environment of other nations.

Consider, for example, a proposed rule that imposes heightened clean air requirements on American steel manufacturers. H.R. 2804 would necessarily require consideration of whether this regulation--which could potentially result in higher compliance costs--could make American steel products less competitive in a country, such as China, that has a much less stringent or no regulatory regime.

While the economic analysis under this requirement may be deceptively

simple, its dangerous ramifications for public health cannot be underestimated. Chinese officials have only recently begun to acknowledge the health hazard risks presented by extensive air pollution; and if you have been over there and tried to breathe, you know that the air is greatly polluted over there. And so the Chinese have finally awakened to that fact, but the end result is that the public health of Americans and the safety of the environment would be compromised so that American manufacturers can better compete with their foreign counterparts. This is a shortsighted regulatory race to the bottom that prioritizes profits over saving lives.

Another fundamental flaw with H.R. 2804 is that it will greatly lengthen and not shorten the already time-consuming process by which Federal rules are promulgated. Avoiding undue delay in rulemaking is important because strong regulation is vital to protecting Americans in nearly every aspect of their lives. On average, Madam Chair, it takes between 4 to 8 years for an agency to promulgate a new rule. But instead of streamlining the rulemaking process, this bill extensively adds numerous procedural hurdles to the process.

In title II of the bill, 60 additional procedural steps to the rulemaking process are included. Not only that, title II reinstates a long discredited rulemaking process that requires trial-type procedures. Known as formal rulemaking, this time-consuming process was widely rejected decades ago as being highly ineffective.

Recently proposed regulations that could be impacted by this and other provisions in the bill include rules implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act's standards to reduce food contaminants like salmonella, and that would help prevent 1.75 million cases of illness.

Another thing that would be interrupted, another rules process, strengthening chemical facility accident prevention standards in response to the 2013 fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, that resulted in the deaths of 12 volunteer firefighters and two other individuals.

Another interruption would be preventing the manufacture and distribution of tainted and counterfeit prescription drugs.

Also impacted would be the implementation of the Justice Department's national standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape.

Another interruption would be adjusting the reimbursement rates to Medicare providers for end-stage renal disease and setting payments to primary care physicians under the Vaccines for Children Program.

It would also stop the establishment of meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

It would prevent implementation of the Labor Department's standards for H-2B aliens in the United States.

For all of those reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose this legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

As the designee of Mr. Cartwright, I am offering amendment No. 1.

Madam Chair, this amendment simply strikes the moratorium provisions in title I of the bill. Madam Chair, a regulatory moratorium makes absolutely no sense. Cass Sunstein, the former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has observed:

A moratorium would not be a scalpel or a machete; it would

be more like a nuclear bomb, in the sense that it would

prevent regulations that cost very little and have very

significant economic and public health benefits.

This is yet another iteration of an attempt by the majority to obstruct at all costs and stop all regulations. In the last Congress, we considered H.R. 4078, which would have imposed a moratorium for ``any quarter'' where the Bureau of Labor Statistics average of monthly unemployment rates is equal to or less than 6 percent. Although the Republican-controlled House passed the bill, it of course died in the Senate.

A moratorium threatens key health and safety regulations. During the 104th Congress, the House passed the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, a bill that imposed a regulatory moratorium pending the institution of a risk analysis and assessment regime. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Democrats, in their dissent to the reported bill, observed that the legislation was ``ill-conceived'' and that it had ``unknown consequences.'' In particular, they noted:

The bill ignores the interests of the average American.

There is no effort in this bill to sort out the good from the

bad. It is a one-size-fits-all solution. The bill will

threaten key health and safety regulations, such as improved

meat and poultry inspection procedures, while also halting

regulations favored by business, such as rules at the FCC to

allocate portions of the spectrum for new telephone systems.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would strike the bill's pernicious moratorium provision.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the majority is pursuing this legislation in complete disregard of various recent examples of regulatory failure. These include the Massey coal mine explosion in West Virginia which took the lives of 29 miners. In fact, next month will mark the 1-year anniversary of that explosion. The explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that stemmed from lax regulation of oil drilling platforms is also a prominent example. The home foreclosure crisis, the 2008 financial crisis, and the ensuing Great Recession, all of which stemmed from the fact that regulators under the Bush administration lacked the direction, resources, and authority to confront the highly reckless behavior of the private sector, and particularly the lending and financial service industries.

It was a direct response to these regulatory failures in the financial realm that Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act and other measures during the 111th Congress, and Republicans have tried to repeal those measures and have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Of the 58 bills that were passed out of this so-called do-nothing Congress in the first year of this session, not one of them was a jobs bill; not one job created. Do we set ourselves up again for the kind of regulatory Wild Wild West that got us into trouble in the first place?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I think everyone can agree that the Federal agencies need the resources to be able to go back and review and rescind and repeal any unnecessary regulations, but we have been busy cutting government for the last 3 years. This legislation before us won't cut any regulations, but it certainly will keep any regulations from coming forward. I think that would accomplish the objective of the Republicans here, which is to protect Big Business.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rothfus amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would add an additional level of analysis in the regulatory process that examines whether or not regulations have a negative impact on jobs and wages.

Adding this additional requirement that is highly speculative and analytical would further slow down the rulemaking process, adding more red tape.

I invite the gentleman to support my amendment, amendment No. 9, which we will get to shortly, that would exclude from the bill any rule, consent decree, or settlement agreement that would result in net job creation or have greater benefits than costs.

I would also hope that my friends on both sides of the aisle would have a desire to improve the economy and take actions to foster job growth, instead of adding more red tape to the regulatory process.

To the extent that regulations have anything to do with jobs, H.R. 2804's proponents should overwhelmingly support my amendment No. 9, which exempts from the bill all rules that OMB determines would result in net job creation.

With respect to regulations stifling job creation, the evidence, Madam Chairman, is to the contrary. If anything, regulations can promote job growth and put Americans back to work.

For instance, the BlueGreen Alliance notes:

Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth

have found that most regulations result in modest job growth

or have no effect, and economic growth has consistently

surged forward in concert with these health and safety

protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining example, given

that the economy has grown 204 percent and private sector job

creation has expanded 86 percent since its passage in 1970.

In reference to the Clean Air Act, the Office of Management and Budget observed that 40 years of success with this measure have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go hand-in-hand.

Regulations create valuable jobs and research across industries. For example, a pending regulation limiting the amount of airborne mercury will not just reduce the amount of seriously toxic pollutants, but create as many as 45,000 temporary jobs and possibly 8,000 permanent jobs, as The New York Times noted last month.

Heightened vehicle emissions standards have spurred clean vehicle research, development, and production efforts that in turn have already generated more than 150,000 jobs at 504 facilities in 43 States across the United States of America.

The majority's own witness clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation during his testimony at a Judiciary Committee hearing held in the last Congress on an antiregulatory bill.

Christopher DeMuth, with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared testimony:

The ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in

regulatory debates'' and that the employment effects of

regulation, while important, ``are indeterminant.''

The claim by the bill's proponents, namely, that regulatory uncertainty creates a disincentive for businesses to add jobs, was rejected by Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations.

He observed:

Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans

that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue

an agenda supported by the business community, year in and

year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political

opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high

employment.

That was Bruce Bartlett.

Leading scholars, such as Wake Forest Law Professor Sidney Shapiro has testified:

All of the available evidence contradicts the claim that

regulatory uncertainty is deterring business development and

investment.

Scant demand, not regulations, drives hiring choices.

In sum, there is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment reminds me of how things used to be when I was a young parent and I had my children at home. When it came time for my favorite TV program, I would tell them to go upstairs and clean up their room again.

They would say, Daddy, we already cleaned up the room, and I would say, Go clean it up again.

Then when they would scamper upstairs, I would put the TV on and watch my program in peace. So it gave them some busy work.

That is pretty much what this amendment does. It creates an additional requirement in the rulemaking process for an agency to articulate achievable objectives and metrics indicating progress toward those objectives.

This amendment piles on the bill's numerous mandatory new rulemaking requirements, and it implies that agencies issue rules that lack an achievable objective, notwithstanding the fact that regulations already go through an extensive public notice and comment period as well as being subjected to judicial review.

The bill would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty, increase costs for businesses and State, local, and tribal governments, and it would impede commonsense protections for the American public.

That is why, Madam Chair, there are more than 150 consumer groups, environmental organizations, labor unions, and other entities that are strenuously opposed to this bill. These organizations include the AFL- CIO, the Alliance for Justice, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Lung Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the UAW, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Women's Law Center, the National Resources Defense Council, People For the American Way, Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, the Service Employees International Union, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the United Steelworkers, just to name a few.

Likewise, the administration has issued a strongly worded veto threat against this bill. It warns that the bill would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory duties.

For those reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment harkens me back to the time when my kids were young and when I was trying to make sure that they would not jump into something where one of their schoolmates might be being bullied, and then they would jump in on the part of the bully or would just participate in the antagonism against the victim, and I told them not to pile on.

This amendment is a classic case of piling on. It would add an eighth requirement for the initial regulatory flexibility analysis specified by the bill. The agency would have to provide a detailed statement describing any impairment of the ability of small entities to have access to credit. The bill already requires agencies to consider all indirect costs, which would include this issue. This amendment would allow yet another ground for a regulated entity to challenge a rulemaking.

Title III does nothing to help small businesses and other small entities reduce compliance costs or to ensure agency compliance with the RFA. Instead, this amendment would impose another unnecessary burden on agencies. This is just another piling on of the already burdensome new rulemaking requirements.

This amendment as well as the bill ignore the fact that the small businesses, like their larger counterparts, can substantially impact the health and safety of their workers as well as that of the general public. Small businesses, like all businesses, provide services and goods that affect our lives and carry the same risks of harm as the services and goods that large businesses provide. It makes no difference to someone who is breathing dirty air or drinking poisoned water whether the hazards come from a small or a large business.

Speaking of business, the American Sustainable Business Council is a growing national coalition of businesses and business organizations committed to advancing policies that support a vibrant and sustainable economy. The American Sustainable Business Council, through its partner organizations, represents over 200,000 businesses and more than 325,000 business professionals, including industry associations, local and State Chambers of Commerce, micro enterprises, social enterprises, green and sustainable businesses, local livable economy groups, women and minority business leaders, and investors and investor networks.

While some inside the beltway claim that regulations are holding back our economic recovery, the American Sustainable Business Council has a different view. It, along with other small business organizations, released a February 2012 poll of small business owners which found that small businesses don't see regulations as a major concern. Its polling confirmed that small business owners value regulations if they are well-constructed and fairly enforced.

They found that small business owners believe certain governmental regulations play an important role: 86 percent of them believe some regulation is necessary for a modern economy; 93 percent of respondents believe their business can live with some regulation if it is fair and manageable; 78 percent of small employers agree regulations are important in protecting small businesses from unfair competition and to help level the playing field with big businesses; 79 percent of small business owners support having clean air and water in the community in order to keep their family, employees, and customers healthy.

Madam Chair, I include the letter from the American Sustainable Business Council in the Record, and I yield back the balance of my time.

American Sustainable

Business Council,

Washington, DC, February 25, 2014.

Dear Representative: I write you today to urge you to

oppose the mini-omnibus bill of four flawed regulatory

proposals (packaged into H.R. 2804) and H.R. 899, the

Unfunded Mandates Transparency and Information Act. Votes on

these bills are expected this week. These bills hurt small

and medium sized businesses by halting the regulatory process

that levels the playing group for these businesses to

compete, creates incentives for innovation and protects our

customers and employees.

The package of Anti-Regulatory policies these bills

represent constitutes a shift away from forty years of

regulatory precedent that protects the public against a range

of market imperfections. These policies will also lead to a

more chaotic and less competitive market. And finally, the

bills will have the unintended consequence of shifting the

burden of proof for environmental, health and safety issues

back to taxpayers and away from powerful corporate interests.

Eroding the operational capacity of regulatory agencies to do

their job, as these bills appear designed to do, will not

foster productive growth among small and mid-sized firms.

Instead these actions will allow the largest firms to further

dominate the marketplace.

Also if enacted, this package of bills would open the door

for more problems like the financial and mortgage crisis of

2008. This would, in our view, would further damage our

economy, stifle consumer demand and put small companies out

of business.

The American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) is a

growing national coalition of businesses and business

organizations committed to advancing policies that support a

vibrant and sustainable economy. ASBC, through its partner

organizations, represents over 200,000 businesses and more

than 325,000 business professionals, including industry

associations, local and state chambers of commerce, micro-

enterprise, social enterprise, green and sustainable

business, local living economy groups, woman and minority

business leaders, and investor networks.

While some inside the Beltway claim that regulations are

holding back our economic recovery, ASBC has a different

view. ASBC, along with other small business organizations,

released in February 2012 a poll of small business owners

which found that small businesses don't see regulations as a

major concern.

Our polling confirmed that small business owners value

regulations if they are well-constructed and fairly enforced:

Small business owners believe certain government

regulations play an important role

86% believe some regulation is necessary for a modern

economy and 93% of respondents believe their business can

live with some regulation if it is fair and manageable.

78% of small employers agree regulations are important in

protecting small businesses from i unfair competition and to

level the playing field with big business.

79% of small business owners support having clean air and

water in their community in order to keep their family,

employees and customers healthy.

61% support standards that move the country towards energy

efficiency and clean energy.

Supporting the ASBC 2012 poll is a Wells Fargo/Gallup poll

of small businesses conducted this past October, which found

that only seven percent mentioned regulations as being an

important challenge.

Given the important role regulations play yet there still

may be a small percentage of businesses having difficulty

with them, the answer is not H.R. 2804 and H.R. 899. Instead

we believe the solution lies in expanding the capacity of the

regulatory agencies to provide assistance to small businesses

in compliance. Increasing the number of agency ombudsmen and/

or ombudsmen within the SBA and giving them the resources to

be more proactive as well as responsive will target federal

dollars to specific areas of concern. Our experience has been

that the ombudsmen process works well.

Blocking, weakening or delaying critical standards and

safeguards will not address existing needed regulations that

a small number of small businesses have trouble with

compliance. It will only worsen the uneven economic playing

field that leaves many small and medium sized businesses at a

competitive disadvantage. It also inhibits innovation in new

technologies that can create good, sustainable jobs and

create safer products, workplaces and communities.

We call on the House of Representatives to reject this

package of anti-regulatory policies.

Sincerely

David Levine,

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am in support of this amendment.

It is to my horror that I would agree to this amendment, but it simply corrects a drafting error. So we do not oppose this amendment. It makes a thoroughly flawed bill slightly less thoroughly flawed.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

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

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).

We do not, sir. We are prepared to close.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 492 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.

Mr. Speaker, every year, bureaucrats in Washington impose thousands of regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. Those mandates can be costly, stretching city and State budgets and making it harder for American businesses to hire.

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, H.R. 899, will ensure that the people who write these regulations in Washington know exactly what they are asking the American people to pay and whether the costs of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat.

H.R. 899 will force Washington to think more carefully about regulatory costs before it passes them on to Americans. This bill is about transparency and accountability, and it is something Democrats and Republicans can all support.

In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, legislation designed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing unfunded mandates onto State and local governments or private businesses without policymakers or the public knowing the costs of such policies.

UMRA's main objective was to force the Federal Government to estimate how much unfunded mandates would cost local governments and businesses and rein in out-of-control mandates.

UMRA ensured public awareness of the crushing financial burden of Federal mandates on employers and State and local governments. However, UMRA has not been amended since 1995, and some subtle changes are needed to preserve and improve on the act's initial purpose.

UMRA was a good bill, but over time, some shortcomings became apparent such that the Clinton and, later, Obama administrations had written executive orders to fix the loopholes within it.

As many of my colleagues can confirm, it takes a lot of creativity and hard work to pass legislation as a member of a minority party.

When Democrats gained control of Congress back in 2007, I sat down with my staff to think about legislative ideas that could gain sufficient bipartisan support to clear a Democrat Congress. This bill is the result of those efforts.

H.R. 899 has bipartisan DNA. It codifies those administrative fixes championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and promotes good government accountability and transparency.

As a testament to this fact, the bill is cosponsored by three of my Democrat colleagues here in the House: Representatives Mike McIntyre, Collin Peterson, and Loretta Sanchez.

I owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts in promoting this commonsense bill.

I am especially grateful to Representative James Lankford, a Republican cosponsor of this bill, who has worked tirelessly to promote its passage here in the House. We wouldn't be here today without his efforts.

A common refrain in this business is that nobody wants to see how the sausage is made, meaning that the process of drafting and passing legislation is so ugly that it would repulse people. In this case, I disagree.

I am extremely proud of this bill and extremely proud of the process by which it has been advanced in the House. It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure, and I appreciate their support and counsel.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform and Transparency Act of 1995 was a model for bipartisanship, and my hope is that my bill leaves a similar legacy.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I really respect and appreciate my colleague from Florida, but there is nothing in this bill that would stop the development of rules and regulations by the executive branch, absolutely nothing. All we want to do is make sure that the cost of those rules and regulations is totally transparent.

Also, I appreciate my colleague's saying that we shouldn't be passing bumper sticker bills. We joked about this bill. The title for it, if you abbreviate it, is ``UMITA.'' That anagram hardly comes trippingly off the tongue, and it really wouldn't make much of a bumper sticker for us.

He also indicates that this bill is going to be dead on arrival in the Senate, so we should just give our attention to something else. I know my colleague knows this: the House of Representatives is mentioned very first in the Constitution. I believe the Founders intended for us to do our job and to do it well here. We shouldn't be thinking ``it is my way or the highway.'' This is a bill that has been cosponsored by Democrats, and I believe it will get a lot of Democrat votes. The logic from my colleague is that because this House is predominantly Republican that we should at the outset just acquiesce to the Democrat- led Senate or do nothing at all, but that is not how the legislative process works. There has to be a give and take.

I believe the House will pass this legislation tomorrow, and if the Senate wants to change it and send it back, fine--we will work it out-- because that is our job, and that is the way it works, but I reject the notion that the Senate will not act on this bill. As I said, it is not a Republican bill; it is a bipartisan bill. It has Republican and Democrat cosponsors. My conversation with our Senate colleagues suggests this bill could clear the Senate and be signed into law by the President--this President.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that, last year, the President signed 76 laws--64 of those came from the House of Representatives and only 12 from the Senate, if I am accurate. If not, I will correct the Record. It is wrong for us to say we shouldn't be passing bills in the House because anything sponsored by a Republican will go nowhere in the Senate since the Democrats control it, because the evidence from last year, obviously, disproves that.

Mr. Speaker, since the 1995 passage of UMRA, experts across the political spectrum agree that the bill has led to the generation of important information about the potential impacts of mandates proposed in legislation and regulations. However, since its inception, there have been very few revisions to the law while various exclusions and exceptions have cropped up, creating loopholes limiting the act's coverage.

H.R. 899 builds on the success of UMRA by drawing upon executive orders enacted by the last two Democrat Presidents to close loopholes, streamline the cost-reporting process, and clarify the responsibilities of those in charge with complying with these requirements.

Independent regulatory agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission are currently exempted from UMRA. H.R. 899 will require even these independent regulatory agencies to analyze the costs of their proposed mandates before they are imposed on the public.

H.R. 899 would also treat ``changes to conditions of grant aid'' as mandates, triggering an UMRA cost analysis. Legislation or regulations that force States or localities to make changes in order to qualify for Federal grant aid would no longer be exempt from scrutiny.

H.R. 899 will guarantee the public always has the opportunity to weigh in on regulations. Whereas UMRA only triggered cost analyses for regulations that were publicly announced through a ``notice of proposed rulemaking,'' this bill will require all regulations, whether a notice of proposed rulemaking was issued or not, to complete cost analyses.

H.R. 899 will also equip Congress and the American people with better tools to determine the true cost of regulations. Analyses required by H.R. 899 will have to factor in real-world consequences, such as lost business profits, costs passed on to consumers, and changed behavior costs when considering the bottom line impact of Federal mandates.

Finally, H.R. 899 will ensure government is held accountable for following these rules. If the requirements set forth by UMRA and UMITA are not met, a judicial stay may be placed upon regulations.

This legislation is purely about good government. It is about being open and honest about the cost of regulations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are not quite ready to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, according to a report issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the number of economically significant rules in the pipeline, which are those that could cost $100 million or more annually, has increased by more than 137 percent over the past decade.

Section 12 of my bill responds to such concerns by requiring Federal agencies to conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal regulation at the request of a committee chairman or ranking minority member. The retrospective analysis submitted to the requesting member and to Congress is to include:

One, a copy of the Federal regulation;

Two, the continued need for the Federal regulation;

Three, the nature of comments or complaints received concerning the Federal regulation;

Four, the extent to which the mandate may duplicate another Federal regulation;

Five, the degree to which technology or economic conditions have changed in the area affecting the Federal regulation;

Six, an analysis of the retrospective costs and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies done outside the government; and

Seven, the history of legal challenges to the Federal regulation.

Since the duty to promote public accountability and transparency in Federal regulatory policy is endless, this provision builds on the strengths of UMRA by helping ensure ongoing compliance with legislative intent.

This kind of ongoing monitoring, identified as a priority by section 5 of Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton, and by section 6 of Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama, is critical for adapting to changing circumstances that shaped initial UMRA cost estimates.

This helps ensure a fresh look at regulations to make certain they remain

consistent with their initial purpose and have not become overly burdensome, outdated, or unnecessary. This is just one of many bipartisan initiatives contained in my bill that further underscores the need for my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, section 3 of my bill has received praise from State and local government advocacy groups as it would allow a committee chairman or ranking member to request that the Congressional Budget Office perform an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal assistance being imposed on any respective participating State, local or tribal government.

The purpose of this provision is to highlight costs the Federal Government is passing along to State and local governments that would otherwise remain hidden but borne by taxpayers regardless of which governmental entity is taxing them.

CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin's statement before the Committee on Government Reform on March 8, 2005, speaks further to this issue, saying:

According to UMRA, the conditions attached to most forms of

Federal aid, including most grant programs, are not mandates.

Yet complying with such conditions can sometimes be

burdensome. In particular, States consider new conditions on

existing grant programs to be duties not unlike mandates. Two

often-cited examples of such conditions are the requirements

for receiving Federal funding under the No Child Left Behind

Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Those laws require school districts to undertake many

activities, including, respectively, designing and

implementing Statewide achievement tests and preparing

individualized education plans for disabled children, but

only if they wish to receive certain Federal education grant

funds.

In other words, these mandates escape UMRA's scrutiny because current law doesn't define this type of cost shifting as a ``mandate.'' My bill closes this loophole. The landmark Supreme Court decision, the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, hinged, in part, on this very issue.

Although the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion was not technically considered a ``mandate'' under UMRA, it required States to dramatically expand the program or risk losing all funding. For this reason, the Supreme Court ultimately deemed this provision unconstitutional.

Justice Roberts wrote that this portion of the Affordable Care Act violated the Constitution because:

Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate

according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States

grants and require the States to comply with accompanying

conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether

to accept the offer. The States were given no such choice in

this case. They must either accept a basic change in the

nature of Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding.

In this way, the Affordable Care Act provides a contemporary, salient case study in how important it is for legislators and the public to have access to critical information concerning the costs of Federal decrees.

My bill will put this important information in the hands of Congress and the American people. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

With that, I would be prepared to close if the gentleman from Florida is prepared, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle. I frankly don't think there is much more serious legislation around here than this piece, as I said earlier. UMITA doesn't exactly come trippingly off the tongue, and it isn't the most scintillating legislation out there, but it has great bipartisan support, which is what my colleague said we should be doing. So I am curious about his going off talking about a lot of other things other than this.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that multiple provisions in my bill, including sections 8 and 9, would codify general principles of good government embodied in President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 and President Obama's Executive Order 13563.

Section 8 closes a blatant, often exploited loophole inconsistent with legislative intent and the spirit of the law. Again, I think this legislation is doing exactly what the Congress should be doing, and that is sticking with legislative intent and making sure that we are looking after the fact that the laws we pass are adhered to.

Since title II of UMRA says that agencies must develop a written statement describing the effects of their regulations on State, local, and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, ``unless otherwise prohibited by law,'' some agencies have concluded that general statutory language limiting the consideration of economic costs in setting regulations ``prohibits'' them from preparing a written statement evaluating the non-cost elements.

Reasserting legislative intent, this section of my bill prevents this loophole from being exploited for purposes of ignoring UMRA requirements by clarifying that agencies must conduct UMRA analysis unless a law ``expressly'' prohibits them from doing so.

This simple wording change makes a world of difference by clarifying that agencies must conduct UMRA analyses unless a law ``expressly'' prohibits the disclosure.

Another way UMRA's cost disclosure requirements have been exploited by ambitious rulemakers is by deeming a proposal an emergency and thereby forgoing the notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPRM, process, which is the avenue through which the public weighs in on proposed regulation.

Without compromising the ability to issue mandates in emergency scenarios, section 9 of the underlining bill removes the perverse incentive for agencies to forego NPRMs by requiring them to fulfill UMRA cost disclosure requirements within 6 months of issuing the urgent decree.

Modest bipartisan provisions such as these highlight additional reasons for my colleague to support the rule and underlying bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Florida is prepared.

I thank my colleague from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, as proud as I am of this legislation, I realize that its passage on Friday will not be front-page news.

I understand that ``Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Band Together to Close Technical Loopholes in UMRA'' isn't exactly a riveting headline, but what we are doing here is important.

In Congress, we often focus our energy and attention on those issues that are most divisive and controversial. There are real substantive disagreements between the two parties and among the American people.

But Congress must do the hard things, and every now and then we get an opportunity to do something easy. This should be easy. The reforms in this bill are ``low hanging fruit.''

These are modest reforms supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. Some of these changes merely codify executive orders issued by the last two Democrat Presidents.

Some of my colleagues have suggestions for improvement and have offered amendments to this bill. Great. I welcome their suggestions. Those amendments will be discussed here tomorrow in an open and transparent process.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, every Democrat amendment that was submitted has been included in this rule.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this sensible legislation that will enhance transparency, accountability, and awareness of Federal mandates. I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform filed its report (H. Rept. 113-352, Part 1) to accompany H.R. 899 on February 14, 2014, it included an exchange of letters between the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The letter from Chairman Sessions was inadvertently dated February 11, 2013 and was intended to be dated February 11, 2014.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration 'of the bill (H.R.

1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and

the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1010.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2804.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just over 6 months ago, President Obama announced that he would once again pivot to the economy. The bottom line of his speech: after 4\1/2\ years of the Obama administration, ``We're not there yet.''

The President was right. We were not there yet nor are we there today. Job creation and economic growth continue to fall short of what is needed to produce a real and durable recovery in our country. The nominal unemployment rate is down, but that is not because enough workers have found jobs; it is because so many unemployed workers have despaired of ever finding new full-time work. They have either left the workforce or have settled for part-time jobs.

As long as this situation continues, Congress must stay focused on enacting reforms that will stop the losses, return America to prosperity, and return discouraged workers to the dignity of a good, full-time job. The legislation we consider today is just that

kind of reform. Through its strong, commonsense measures, the ALERRT Act will powerfully and comprehensively reform the Federal regulatory system, from how regulations are planned to how they are promulgated to how they are dealt with in court.

This is legislation that Congress cannot pass too soon, for while the Obama administration's pivot to the economy has faltered, the Federal bureaucracy has not wavered an instant in its imposition of new and costly regulation on our economy. The ALERRT Act responds by offering real relief to the real Americans who suffer under the mounting burdens of tyrannical regulation.

Consider, for example, Rob James, a city councilman from Avon Lake, Ohio, who testified before the Judiciary Committee this term about the impacts of new and excessive regulation on his town, its workers, and its families.

Avon Lake is a small town facing devastation by ideologically driven, anti-fossil fuel power plant regulations. These regulations are expected to destroy jobs at Avon Lake, harm Avon Lake's families, and make it even harder for Avon Lake to find the resources to provide emergency services, quality schools, and help for its neediest citizens, all the while doing comparatively little to control mercury emissions, which are the stated target of the regulations.

Title I of the ALERRT Act helps people and towns like Rob James and Avon Lake to know in real time when devastating regulations are planned, comment in time to help change them, estimate their real costs, and better plan for the results as agencies reach their final decisions.

Consider, too, Bob Sells, one of my constituents and president of the Virginia-based division of a heavy construction materials producer. His company and its workers were harmed by EPA cement kiln emission regulations that were technically unattainable and included provisions vastly changed from what EPA proposed for public comment; other EPA emission regulations that were stricter than needed to protect health, gerrymandered to impose expensive controls on other types of emissions and which prohibited commonsense uses of cheap and safe fuel that could actually help the environment; and Department of Transportation regulations that, without increasing safety, vastly increased record- keeping for ready-mix concrete drivers, unnecessarily limited their hours and suppressed their wages.

Title II of the ALERRT Act helps to protect people like Bob Sells and his workers from regulations that ask job creators to achieve the unachievable, do not help to control their stated regulatory targets, suppress hours and wages for no good reason, and inundate Americans with unnecessary paperwork.

Title III of the ALERRT Act offers long-needed help to small business people like Carl Harris, the vice president and general manager of Carl Harris Co., Inc., in Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Harris is a small home builder. Every day, he has to fight and overcome the fact that government regulations now account for 25 percent of the final price of a new single-family home.

Mr. Harris participates in small business review panels of existing law uses to try to lower the costs of regulations for small businesses, but he has seen firsthand how loopholes in existing law allow Federal agencies to ignore small business concerns while ``checking the box'' of contacting small businesses. One case is that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Cranes and Derricks Rule, which was effectively negotiated before small business was ever consulted and threatened to impose disproportionate costs on small builders.

Title III of the ALERRT Act helps small business job creators like Mr. Harris make sure that agencies like OSHA stop treating them like procedural hurdles and afterthoughts, take into real account the difficulties small businesses face, and lower costs on small businesses that must be lowered.

Finally, consider Allen Puckett, III, who is the fourth-generation owner of Columbus Brick Company, a family-owned enterprise that has been making fired-clay bricks in Columbus, Mississippi, since 1890. His company distributes bricks to more than 15 States, has second-, third- and fourth-generation employees, offers a fully funded, profit-sharing retirement plan and a 401(k) matching program, and has a nurse practitioner come on site twice a month to provide a free clinic to all of its employees.

Mr. Puckett's company may now be shuttered in the face of two waves of sue-and-settle brick-making emissions regulations that threaten to put his company and others like it out of business. After time- consuming litigation, the first regulations were thrown out in court but not before Mr. Puckett's company had already lost at least $750,000 in compliance costs and the entire industry had lost $100 million. The second replacement regulations threaten to be twice as expensive, so expensive that Columbus Brick Company expects to have to downsize by two-thirds or close.

The translation for hardworking Americans employed by such businesses is: higher prices for goods, fewer job opportunities and lower wages.

Title IV of the ALERRT Act helps people like Allen Puckett find out about sue-and-settle rulemaking deals in time, make sure their concerns are heard by agencies and the courts, and have a fighting chance to achieve a just result for themselves, their employees, and the families and communities that depend on them.

In all of these ways and more, the ALERRT Act brings urgently needed regulatory reform to hardworking Americans, whether they are small business people struggling to be heard by faceless Washington bureaucracies or whether they are citizens of small towns who are crushed by the impacts of regulations that force plant closings, harm families, and kill the revenues needed to provide vital services.

I thank Mr. Bachus, Mr. Holding, and Mr. Collins for joining with me in offering the individual bills that now come to the floor together as the ALERRT Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this urgently needed legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a contributor of one of the bills that has been included in the ALERRT Act.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee, who has worked so closely with us on this legislation and who is the sponsor of one of the pieces of the ALERRT Act.

Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama.

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I believe that I have the right to close, so if the gentleman from Georgia would proceed, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Let's begin by reviewing the facts: $1.8 trillion plus--and that is just Federal Government regulations, mind you. That is not State government regulations or local government regulations. $1.8 trillion, one-eighth of the total economic production of our country, is spent on government regulations. Some of those regulations are necessary, and this law by no means eliminates the regulations. It puts them through a process whereby we will know that the regulations are needed and are done in the most cost-effective way and in the most commonsense way.

What will be the result of that? Lower costs for goods and services; lower taxes for Americans who face, right now, an average per-family cost of $11,500 a year in higher costs of goods and services and higher taxes as a result of regulatory burdens. So imagine if some of that money were reduced what the savings would be. Imagine what it would do to job creation in our country.

We have talked a lot about manufacturing here today. Last year, for the first time in history, manufacturing in the United States reached $2 trillion in production--$2 trillion. It sounds remarkable until you consider that regulations cost $1.86 trillion--just Federal Government regulations almost wiping out the entire economic production of the manufacturing sector of our economy if all those regulations apply to manufacturing, which, of course, they do not.

But consider the impact on individuals. Consider the impact upon Rob James, the city councilman in Avon Lake, Ohio, who is experiencing reduced revenues coming in to meet basic obligations like education and emergency services because regulations of power plants with unnecessary ideologically driven anti-fossil fuel burdensome regulations are expected to destroy jobs in Avon Lake.

Consider the job loss in the business of Mr. Allen Puckett and his brick manufacturing company in Mississippi who expects to have to lay off two-thirds of his employees because of the second round of sue-and- settle brick-making emissions regulation where somebody sues, and the regulatory agency makes a settlement of that in a friendly case that Mr. Puckett and his employees didn't even know about the process where the suit was being brought and couldn't enter into it and say this is what is going to happen if you have to implement these regulations.

Or consider the impact on the cost of buying a home, one of the basic parts of the American Dream, when Mr. Karl Harris of Wichita, Kansas, says that one-quarter of the cost--one-quarter of the cost of a home today is in the form of regulation, the cost of those regulations.

With this legislation in place, businesses across America and workers across America will experience an increase in their profitability and an increase in their wages. We don't need to have government interference in the marketplace with regard to wages. They would rise on their own if the government would take practical steps in reviewing regulations before they are implemented in this country.

Finally, let me say that this is all about the individual and their freedom. Government regulation suppresses freedom of ideas and of implementing new ways of doing things. Yes, we need to have regulations to protect safety in the workplace. Yes, we need to have regulations to protect the environment, but they need to be commonsense regulations that are going about doing what needs to be done and no more, and are going about doing what needs to be done in the most effective way, and they are going about doing what needs to be done in a way that the people who are going to be impacted by those regulations, who are going to see their businesses lost, their workers lose their jobs and not even have any notice that this is going to occur.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, as Federal regulatory agencies attempt to pile more and more regulatory burdens on America's struggling workers, families and small businesses, the least we can ask is that they be transparent about it. What could be more transparent than requiring them, the regulators, on a monthly basis, online, to update the public with real-time information about what new regulations are coming and how much they will cost?

Once they have that information, affected individuals and job creators will be able to plan and budget meaningfully for new costs they may have to absorb. If they are denied that information, they will only be blindsided. That is not fair.

Title I of the ALERRT Act makes sure this information is provided to the public. To provide a strong incentive to agencies to honor its requirements, title I prohibits new regulations from becoming effective unless agencies provide transparent information online for 6 months preceding the regulations' issuance.

The amendment seeks to eliminate that incentive. Without an incentive like that in existing law, what have we seen from the Obama administration? Repeated failures to make disclosures required by statute and executive order, including the administration's yearlong hiding of the ball on new regulations during the 2012 election cycle. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time, and just say that the fact of the matter is that the provision in the bill that this amendment attacks is a very straightforward provision that just provides for transparency. It doesn't stop any of the regulations the gentleman from Georgia referenced; it simply says if you do the regulations, tell us about them ahead of time so as you move toward the final implementation, the last 6 months before it goes

into effect, the public gets to see it, the media gets to see it, the businesses that are impacted get to see it, the workers who may lose their jobs get to see it. That allows them to prepare for it, and it allows them to comment. It allows them to try to change the law. It is simply a fair way to enter into regulations. It is a commonsense provision that should be kept in the bill, and the amendment should be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

America's small businesses, workers, and families are being crushed by an annual regulatory burden that in 2012 amounted to $15,000 per household. That is an expense bigger than any family expense except for housing, and the number of new costly regulations just keeps growing and growing.

In response, titles II and IV of the bill, which this amendment seeks to strike, those two titles write into statute best practices into rulemaking that help to lower costs, avoid unnecessary regulation, and keep pro-regulatory special interests from abusing the courts to force new costly regulations upon the public.

They do all of this without denying the ability of agencies to issue new regulations that are sensible to fulfill statutory mandates.

Why is this so important that the bill do that? Because although these are best practices, they are too often honored in the breach or not at all because they are not yet written into statute.

The amendment substantially guts the bill; denies important protections to American workers, families, and job creators; and unjustifiably prolongs the time during which regulatory agencies can operate without adequate checks and balances.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.

I strongly support the amendment that he and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) have offered. I urge my colleagues to support it as well, which protects America's workers.

I support the amendment.

Those who suffer the most from over-reaching regulations are workers who lose their jobs or see their wages cut on account of regulations that cost too much. Displaced workers suffer lower earnings once they find new work. That earnings gap persists over the long-term. Blue collar workers are the hardest hit.

Those who take too long to find new work are more likely to leave the labor force and retire. These workers, their families, and this country cannot afford to lose good work, good workers and good wages to needless regulatory excess. This amendment makes sure that agencies better analyze the potential impacts of new regulations on jobs and wages. And it makes sure that agencies come clean with the American people when they impose new regulations that they know will impose real adverse impacts on jobs and wages.

It will protect America's workers and families--and give voters the information they need to hold agencies and their enablers accountable when agencies recklessly destroy jobs and wages.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I strongly support his amendment.

Madam Chairman, one of the simplest, most effective, and most commonsense measures we can take to make sure agencies issue smarter regulations is to require them to do just what this amendment requires: identify achievable objectives for new regulations when they propose them; identify metrics by which they will measure whether those objectives are achieved; and at the end of their rulemakings, live by their own, stated objectives and whether the metrics say the proposed regulations can achieve them.

That is plain, simple, commonsense decisionmaking that American families and businesses live by every day. It is high time that Federal agencies be required to live by these standards, too.

I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Texas' amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I strongly support his amendment.

Madam Chair, title III of the ALERRT Act makes important reforms to assure that agencies identify whether their new regulations will have significant adverse effects on small businesses. One of the most important adverse effects is to identify whether

these new regulations will make it harder for small businesses to obtain credit.

Small businesses create the majority of the new jobs in our economy, yet without access to credit, how can they do that? How can they even survive? The gentleman's amendment makes sure that agencies do identify whether new regulations will make it harder for a substantial number of small businesses to obtain credit. It is a reform that is long overdue and especially important as our country struggles to achieve a real and durable job recovery.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I support his commonsense amendment and urge my colleagues to join in making it unanimous.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my friend, Ms. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we continue down this path of considering bills that are going nowhere. I sincerely wish my friends on the other side of the aisle would stop this Conservative merry-go-round.

The majority leader called this week ``stop government abuse week.'' Abuse? Really?

My friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to ignore the plight of middle class and working poor Americans, immigrants hoping for a better life for their families, and denying the undeniable impact of climate change, just to name a few.

This is even after shutting down the government for purely political purposes and playing a game of chicken with the debt limit; and yet, my Republican friends are calling routine government work ``abuse.'' That seems like a stretch to me.

Abuse is when underregulated industries spill unknown chemicals into the West Virginia water supply. Abuse is when coal ash pours into the waters of North Carolina, when Wall Street bankers crash our economy after taking advantage of underfunded and overworked regulators; that is exactly the kind of abuse that the government needs to stop.

You want to talk about abuse? Let's talk about today's measure.

This bill will not make the regulatory process more balanced or transparent. It will strangle it in red tape. It will not make rulemaking more fair. It will tip the scales in favor of businesses with the most resources.

Under this measure, improving access to health care and restraining the financial institutions that have unleashed havoc on our economy will become even more difficult.

It is nothing more than poorly disguised political fodder aimed at stymieing the executive branch's rulemaking power in favor of some corporate interests that run amuck on the environment and American workers.

Most egregious is the requirement for agencies to provide the private sector early consultation on major rules.

This would give well-funded industry an unfair advantage not afforded to the general public and other stakeholders like public interest, taxpayer, and environmental groups.

Clearly, the interest in amending UMRA only extends to certain privileged parties.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to see what happens when you allow private interests to run rampant without any government regulations, they need only look to the smog-filled skies above China.

This bill also politicizes independent agencies designed to protect the rights of hardworking Americans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Securities Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Consumer Product Safety Commission, as well as the Federal Communications Commission--I might add they kind of left out the Federal Reserve for some reason I don't understand--but all of those other agencies will all have to answer to the whims of politics.

It also forces agencies to choose the cheapest regulatory option over the

best. This is legislating the answer to the same kind of question that a homeowner has to decide when hiring a contractor: Do you want it done cheap, or do you want it done right?

Look, I get it. I understand where we are in the Congressional cycle; but I think that it is unfortunate that my friends across the aisle would rather score political points and write bumper stickers than actually legislate.

While I think it is a good thing that most of these partisan measures will never go anywhere, I can't help but point out that we should be making better use of our limited time here.

We should be raising the minimum wage in order to give millions of hardworking Americans the pay they have earned.

Nearly 5 years have passed since the last increase in the Federal minimum wage.

Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker makes less than $16,000 per year, which is below the poverty line for a family of two or more.

This is unacceptable. It is time for Republicans to end their relentless obstruction and to join Democrats in an effort to provide for the middle class.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would advise my good friend from North Carolina that I have no further requests for time and that I am prepared to close or to reserve as she sees fit.

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague want me to go forward and close or does she want me to reserve?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady.

I indicated I was prepared to close, but I have been advised that we need to occupy a little time as well. So I yield myself such time as I may consume, and we will try to be slow about it.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular legislation, the minority views that were developed allow, among other things, the following:

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act would be an assault on health, safety, and environmental protections. This legislation would erect new barriers to slow down the regulatory process, and it would give corporations an unfair advantage in the regulatory process;

Section 5 of the bill would repeal language that excludes independent regulatory agencies from the reporting requirements of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, with the exception of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Open Market Committee. I spoke to that earlier. I found that passage strange.

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

Section 7 of H.R. 899 would create a new point of order in the House of Representatives for legislation containing an unfunded mandate, making it more difficult to enact legislation.

Section 8 would incorporate a cost-benefit requirement from Executive Order 12866, but it would not include language from the same executive order directing agencies to perform these assessments to the extent feasible.

Section 10 would require agencies to provide impacted parties in the private sector--but not other stakeholders--with an advanced opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations. It would require agencies to conduct consultations with private sector businesses as early as possible, before the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking. Expanding this consultation requirement only to the private sector could allow businesses to have an advantage over other stakeholders, as I mentioned previously, such as taxpayers and environmental groups, with reference to the development of regulatory proposals.

During consideration of this bill by the committee, one of the Members offered an amendment that stated that any opportunities or rights afforded to a corporation under this section shall also be afforded to any interested individual. The amendment was rejected.

My good friend on the other side mentioned the fact that I pointed out that we continue to have one House legislation that goes nowhere in the Senate. And she pointed correctly to the fact--and I stand with her if it needs to be corrected--that there were 76 measures that reached the President's desk, and that 64 of them came out of the House of Representatives. Not knowing all of the statistical imperatives, my belief would be that of that 64 that came out of House of Representatives, a substantial number of them had companion legislation. I questioned whether or not this particular measure that we are addressing today has companion legislation in the Senate, and that is why I feel that it is not going to go anywhere.

Listen, one side is arguing that we need to start the 2014 election right now and don't do anything else that is going to allow for both bodies--it is true, as my colleague said, that the Constitution mentions the House of Representatives first, but it does not give the House of Representatives autonomy in the sense that they, and they alone, can pass legislation. So there is a requirement here that has not been being met, and that is that the Senate and House confer on matters of legislation and then offer it up to the executive branch.

We seem to have circumvented that process. And what we are doing, rather than pass, or at least address--I am fascinated by the fact that I don't believe my colleagues have the courage of their convictions. If we were to put a flood insurance measure on the floor not on suspension, I doubt very seriously that it would not pass. It will pass if it were to come to the floor that way.

I believe that if we offer up a reasonable minimum wage, I don't think anybody in this country can say that $16,000 for a family of two or more people is sufficient in order for them to be able to meet requisites having to do with food and rent alone, let alone educating their children or providing daycare.

I don't think anybody really is against those who paid into the employment system receiving unemployment compensation, and yet we find ourselves here repeatedly addressing a significant number of matters.

Someone wrote the other day, if they got a stain on their tie, it would be because of ObamaCare. My goodness gracious, people, we are a legislative body. We could be about the business of serious legislating. That kind of legislating would require, among other

things, not just bipartisan activity as this legislation has manifested itself as being bipartisan, but it would allow that we would really sit down and talk through the things that are needed in this country.

There is nobody around that doesn't believe that we have bridges that are in disrepair. I haven't found anyone that said that if we invested in infrastructure, that it would not create more jobs in this country. The people want us to do this, and not to do one-sided, one-way measures that are not going to go anywhere anytime soon.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will insert in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, and I will only lift one paragraph, and that is the last paragraph and sentence.

``H.R. 899 would unnecessarily add to the already robust analytical and procedural requirements of the rulemaking process. In particular, H.R. 899 would create needless grounds for judicial review, unduly slowing the regulatory process. In addition, it would add layers of procedural steps that would interfere with agency priority setting and compliance with statutory mandates.''

I guess, not surprisingly to my friends on the other side, ``If H.R. 899 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.''

Mr. Speaker, contrary to my friend's favorite rhetoric, the free market does not solve all problems. Markets fail. We have seen that, have we not? Government is the actor of last resort when the market does not create the necessary incentives for businesses and individuals to protect the public good.

What is more, Federal regulations are not strangling the economy or preventing growth. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

As the Office of Management and Budget has reported, major Federal regulations issued over the last 10 years resulted in annual benefits from $193 billion to $800 billion, while costs are only between $57 billion to $84 billion.

It seems to me that an $84 billion investment with an $800 million return is not a bad thing.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and give at least 25 million Americans a well-deserved pay raise.

A business in the constituency that I serve did this on their own. Jaxson's Ice Cream Parlour in Dania Beach raised it because they said they feel the pain of the people that work with them and that they made a fair profit and wanted to share it with them.

The American people are calling for an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Statement of Administration Policy

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

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

The Administration is committed to ensuring that

regulations are tailored to advance statutory goals in a

manner that is efficient and cost-effective, and that

minimizes uncertainty. By layering on additional, burdensome

judicial review and other unnecessary changes to the

regulatory process, H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates

Information and Transparency Act of 2013, would introduce

needless uncertainty into agency decision-making and

undermine the ability of agencies to provide critical public

health and safety protections. Accordingly, the

Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 899.

When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, the agency

must adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural

requirements of Federal law, including the Administrative

Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the

Congressional Review Act. In addition, for decades, agency

rulemaking has been guided by executive orders issued and

followed by administrations of both political parties. These

require regulatory agencies to promulgate regulations upon a

reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs,

to consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote

regulatory flexibility.

The President's regulatory approach has been consistent

throughout his Administration. We don't have to choose

between protecting the health, welfare, and safety of

Americans and promoting economic growth, job creation,

competitiveness, and innovation--we can do both. To this end,

Executive Order 13563 requires careful cost-benefit analysis,

increased public participation, harmonization of rulemaking

across agencies, and flexible regulatory approaches. Through

executive orders and other presidential directives, agencies

must ensure that they take into account the consequences of

rulemaking on small businesses. And, through Executive Orders

13579 and 13610, the Administration has also taken important

steps to promote systematic retrospective review of

regulations by all agencies, including encouraging

independent agencies to conduct such a review. Collectively,

these requirements promote flexible, cost-effective

regulation.

H.R. 899 would unnecessarily add to the already robust

analytical and procedural requirements of the rulemaking

process. In particular, H.R. 899 would create needless

grounds for judicial review, unduly slowing the regulatory

process. In addition, it would add layers of procedural steps

that would interfere with agency priority setting and

compliance with statutory mandates.

If H.R. 899 were presented to the President, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.