Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 899) to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman for the time and to the two managers of this particular legislation on the floor, particularly to the ranking member for his leadership, and simply ask the question: For those of us who have served in this body the time when the unfunded mandate's original legislation was passed, what possible addition this particular amendment can have?

Let me first start off by saying that I appreciate the good intentions of work that is brought to the floor of the House; but I want to remind my colleagues that, as we speak, the growing numbers of the uninsured continue to rise, and the emergency unemployment insurance has not been passed by this body.

In fact, not passing unemployment insurance is an unfunded mandate. For what we do is we say to the States that 1.3-1.5 million-plus, including family members, of individuals who have worked and who are out every day looking for work are no longer the responsibility of anyone here in the Federal Government.

After the States have maxed out on their 26 weeks, we simply throw these people into the streets. I would imagine that States and nonprofits may have to address their needs through homeless shelters, through food banks, soup kitchens, and other municipality resources that they can scramble together.

It is interesting that we are here discussing an unfunded mandate. As we speak, millions of Americans are suffering because we have refused to address an important issue.

In addition, the minimum wage has thrown throngs of individuals into the claws of desperation on the lack of raising it, of which I have signed a petition--a discharge petition to do so.

As I rise, I want to acknowledge my amendment, which specifically indicates that, if the benefits exceed the costs, then this industry or the industries or this particular provision would not be covering. It clarifies that the provisions of the bill do not apply if a cost- benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of a regulatory action exceed its costs.

My amendment improves the bill by ensuring that regulatory actions needed to protect the public health, safety, and environment can be promulgated and implemented and not be stymied by dilatory tactics.

The Jackson Lee amendment is strongly supported by the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an organization comprised of more than 150 public health, scientific, consumer, environmental, labor, financial, and public interest groups.

Let me say something that I think my colleagues need to know that is distinctive about this amendment. There is a requirement that Federal agencies consult with private corporations.

I heard my good friend say that the Federal Government is for the people, not the other way around. But guess what? There is no requirement for consultation with stakeholders or the public before proposing any new rules. How hypocritical is that? I must consult with private corporations--many of us represent them. We appreciate the work they create--but none of the stakeholders need to be consulted with.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, let me quickly say that, in the previous bill, it was well noted that there were exemptions dealing with constitutional issues and civil rights issues; so my amendment is in track, on line with the original bill that gave exemptions.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his analysis; but let me offer to him that, first of all, this particular legislation will be subject to a veto threat because, as the President has noted, there is already a robust, analytical, and procedural requirement. I agree there should be that, and we already have it.

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards has indicated that the Jackson Lee amendment is a commonsense amendment that makes clear that regulations whose benefits to public health safety exceed the cost of regulated industries are good public investments.

This amendment is a necessary amendment. The Jackson Lee amendment says if it is a good public investment, and it helps in order to clarify some of the untoward provisions of this legislation that will require an interaction with a private corporation, but never talking to the public.

Mr. Chairman, if we are for the people, they should at least be there to be inquired of: What do you think?

And finally, let us end the unfunded mandate of not passing unemployment insurance extension and not lifting the minimum wage. That is an unfunded mandate.

I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment because it clarifies and it puts the people first. I join with my colleague. This is a place for people. We are the ones--the people who run this government. Give them an opportunity to consult under this legislation. Support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

My amendment is simple and straightforward.

The Jackson Lee amendment improves the bill by clarifying that the provisions of the bill do not apply if a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of a regulatory action exceed its costs.

My amendment improves the bill by ensuring that regulatory actions needed to protect the public health, safety, and environment can be promulgated and implemented and not be stymied by dilatory tactics and unnecessary delays.

That is why the Jackson Lee amendment is strongly supported by the Coalition on Sensible Safeguards, an organization comprised of more than 150 public health, scientific, consumer, environmental, labor, financial reform, and public interest groups.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 899, the ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act'' (UMRA), would erect new barriers to slow down the regulatory process and would give corporations an unfair advantage in the regulatory process.

Section 5 of the bill would repeal language that excludes independent regulatory agencies from the reporting requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), with the exception of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Open Market Committee. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for overseeing the UMRA process.

Since the independent agencies would be under the direction of OMB for purposes of UMRA compliance, this could compromise the independence of those agencies.

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

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

Section 10 would require agencies to provide impacted parties in the private sector--but not other stakeholders--with advance notice and opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations.

Section 10 also requires agencies to conduct consultations with private sector businesses ``as early as possible, before the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.''

Expanding this consultation requirement only to the private sector gives corporations an unfair advantage over other stakeholders in the development of regulatory proposals.

During consideration of this bill by the Committee, Representatives Gerry Connolly and Tammy Duckworth offered an amendment that would have evened the playing field by requiring that: ``Any opportunities or rights afforded to a corporation under this section shall also be afforded to any interested individual.''

The Connolly-Duckworth amendment was rejected.

Section 11 would codify the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in reviewing agency regulations and require that if the OIRA Administrator finds that an agency did not comply with UMRA's requirements, the Administrator must request that the agency comply before the regulation is finalized.

Section 12 would require that, ``at the request of the chairman or ranking minority member of a standing or select committee of the House of Representatives or Senate, an agency shall conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal regulation issued by an agency.''

This provision would require agencies to divert resources toward conducting these analyses and away from fulfilling their missions.

Mr. Chair, as the Coalition on Sensible Safeguards says of the Jackson Lee amendment:

This common-sense amendment makes clear that regulations

whose benefits to the public health and safety exceed the

costs to regulated industries, thereby making them good

public investments, are not legislation that is wasteful or

unnecessary[.]

I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

February 26, 2014

Dear Representative, The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

(CSS), which includes more than 150 labor, environmental,

public health, scientific, consumer, financial reform, and

public interest groups, strongly opposes H.R. 899, the

dangerous and harmful ``Unfunded Mandates Information and

Transparency Act of 2013.'' This proposal would undermine our

nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental

standards as well as new financial protections. Given that we

have experienced multiple health and safety disasters in

communities and workplaces across the country in recent

years, it is the wrong time to thwart the progress of

necessary public protections.

While CSS strongly urges members to vote no on H.R. 899,

CSS encourages members to support the amendments offered

below:

Amendment #1 sponsored by Congressman Cummings (MD): This

amendment strikes section 5 of the bill, which would

eliminate the current exemption from the Unfunded Mandate

Reform Act for certain independent agencies. This crucial

amendment would ensure that agencies that Congress designated

to be independent of the Executive Branch remain so. Further,

the amendment would ensure that the important regulations of

these agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety

Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are

not subject to this legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and

unfunded requirements and can be adopted in a timely and

efficient manner.

Amendment #4 sponsored by Congresswoman Jackson Lee (TX):

This amendment adds Section 14 to the bill to clarify that

the requirements of UMRA as amended by this Act do not apply

if a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of

the regulatory action exceed its costs. This common-sense

amendment makes clear that regulations whose benefits to

public health and safety exceed the costs to regulated

industries, thereby making them good public investments, are

not legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and unfunded

requirements and can be adopted in a timely and efficient

manner.

Amendment #5 sponsored by Congressman Connolly (VA): This

amendment ensures that other impacted entities, such as

public interest organizations, are provided any opportunity

for consultation afforded to the private sector under the

Act. This commonsense amendment levels the playing field to

allow public interest organizations the same privilege and

access that the legislation only affords to the business

community and ensures that the regulatory process is fair and

open to all stakeholders in an equal manner.

Sincerely,

Katherine McFate,

President and CEO, Center for Effective Government, Co-chair,

Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

Robert Weissman,

President, Public Citizen

Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This bill is the second major piece of legislation being considered this week that will add needless and counterproductive red tape to the rulemaking process.

I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Oversight Committee has jurisdiction over the executive branch and legislative jurisdiction over governmentwide policies.

It is our duty and our responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government is operating effectively and efficiently. It is also the responsibility of every Member of Congress, and we must hold that dearly.

This legislation may be well-intended, but it would have unintended consequences that would make government less efficient and less effective.

We rely on agency rulemakings to protect our children, protect our workers, and protect our economy. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 150 good government, labor, scientific, faith, health, and community organizations, sent a letter to the Oversight Committee. Here is just a portion of what that letter said:

The Wall Street economic collapse, the British Petroleum

oil spill catastrophe, various food and product safety

recalls, and numerous industrial disasters, including the

Upper Big Branch mine explosion in West Virginia and the

fertilizer plant in West, Texas, have all dramatically

demonstrated the need for a stronger regulatory system that

is more responsive to the public interest. Congress should be

moving forward to protect the public from harm, not rolling

back the clock and weakening important safeguards.

Mr. Chairman, now is not the time for us to be adding unnecessary, burdensome requirements to the rulemaking process. Our constituents expect us to make them safer, not to make it harder for agencies to keep them safe.

The bill would give private industry an unfair advantage in the rulemaking process. Under this bill, agencies would be required to consult with corporations before consulting with customers who would be protected by the regulations. In fact, the bill requires agencies to consult with private industry ``before issuance of a proposed rulemaking.''

This means that, for example, if the Department of Agriculture planned to propose a new food safety rule, corporate agricultural interests would get advance access to the rule, and the opportunity to shape it, before food safety groups, children's health groups, doctors, or independent scientists are able to participate in the process.

I believe that businesses should have the opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules. I think it is very important. They should do it through the normal public comment process, however, just like other stakeholders.

The bill also would put independent agencies in jeopardy of political interference. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts independent agencies from its reporting requirements. This bill removes that exemption.

That would mean that independent regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission would have to submit their rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review, which could undermine their independence. I plan to offer an amendment to strike that provision, and I hope it will be adopted.

This is a well-intended bill with serious, negative consequences. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, one of the most problematic provisions of this bill is the section that expands judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. UMRA currently allows a party to challenge in court whether an agency performed the written statement required under UMRA describing the agency's analysis. A court may require the agency to prepare the written statement if the agency fails to do so. The law explicitly provides, however, that a court cannot use the inadequacy of an agency's UMRA statement or an agency's failure to prepare a written statement as a basis to hold up a rule.

Here is what the statute says:

The inadequacy or failure to prepare such a statement,

including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate,

analysis, statement, or description or written plan shall not

be used as a basis for staying, enjoining, invalidating, or

otherwise affecting such agency rule.

The bill would change the statute to allow courts to review the adequacy of an agency's analysis under UMRA and to allow rules to be delayed or invalidated based on the inadequacy of an agency's statement. This clearly contradicts the intent of the original statute.

The administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy just yesterday saying that, if H.R. 899 were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the legislation.

The statement said:

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

analytical and procedural requirements of the rulemaking

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

grounds for judicial review, unduly slowing the regulatory

process, and, in addition, it would add layers of procedural

steps that would interfere with the agency's priority setting

and compliance with statutory mandates.

There is another allegation that has been made that I want to address, and that is the allegation that there has been a tsunami of rules issued under President Obama. This is simply inaccurate. President Bush issued 14,387 rules in his first 4 years in office. President Obama issued 13,238 in his first term. That is over 1,000 fewer rules than President Bush issued in the same period of time.

According to the Government Accountability Office, agencies published the lowest numbers of rules in 2012 since GAO began keeping data in 1997. GAO found that the first half of 2013 was also on pace to be another record low year. The Office of Management and Budget in its draft 2013 report to Congress on benefits and costs of Federal regulations compared rulemakings across the 4 years of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies. Rules issued in the first 4 years of President Obama's administration had a net benefit of approximately $159 billion. ``Net benefit'' means the benefits of the rule minus the cost. Rules issued in the first term of President Bush's administration had a net benefit of $60 billion, and rules under President Clinton's first term had a net benefit of $30 billion. That means that the rules under President Obama had a bigger net benefit than the Bush administration and the Clinton administration combined.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to inquire as to whether the other side has additional speakers.

So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will close. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to go back to the legislative history of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the law that would be amended by this bill today. The Senate report on the bill that was signed into law said:

The primary purpose of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform

Act of 1995, is to start the process of redefining the

relationship between the Federal Government and State, local,

and tribal governments. In addition, the bill would require

an assessment of legislative and regulatory proposals on the

private sector. The bill accomplishes this purpose by

ensuring that the impact of legislative and regulatory

proposals on those governments and the private sector are

given full consideration in Congress and the executive branch

before they are acted upon.

The bill we are considering today goes far beyond the purposes of the original law. This bill goes beyond simply ensuring that the Federal Government considers the potential impact of a regulation on State and local governments or the private sector. Instead, the bill would put the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of our own constituents. Something is wrong with that picture.

Members should vote against this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to strike section 5 of H.R. 899. My amendment would preserve the integrity of independent agencies.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts independent agencies. The bill we are considering would remove that exemption. That would mean that these agencies would have to submit their rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

Congress creates independent agencies to be just that, independent. Requiring these agencies to submit their rules for review by the White House, no matter who is President, would be inappropriate.

Some of the agencies that would be impacted by this provision include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Communications Commission.

This amendment simply maintains the exemption for independent agencies that is current in law. I urge every Member of this body to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As I close, let me say this, Mr. Chairman. Again, these are independent agencies. Independent agencies could be required to do cost-benefit analysis without requiring rules to go through OMB. This bill allows the administrator of OIRA to hold up a rule if he or she determines the agency didn't comply. I would urge Members to vote in favor of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.