Immigration Reform that Works for America's Future Act

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. President, I am pleased to once again join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti- Retaliation Act. This legislation, which is identical to our legislation from last Congress, will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. This legislation is a continuation of the long partnership that I have had with Senator Grassley on whistleblower issues.

Congress should encourage employees with information about criminal antitrust activity, such as price fixing, to report that information by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. Throughout our history, whistleblowers have been instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing in a variety of areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward, and many times their actions result in important reforms and have even saved lives.

The legislation we are introducing today is based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office, which interviewed key stakeholders in the antitrust community and found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. The provisions in this bill are modeled on the whistleblower protections that Senator Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and are narrowly tailored to ensure that whistleblowers are not provided with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims.

The antitrust laws protect consumers and serve to promote our free enterprise system. Our bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal violations of these laws do not go unreported. I urge the Senate to act quickly to pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on the first day for bill introductions this year I once again join with Senator Crapo and a distinguished, bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. This life-saving legislation should be a top priority of the new 113th Congress. It is our hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass this strong, bipartisan bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence.

The Senate acted just 9 months ago to approve the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 with 68 bipartisan votes. Despite our best efforts, the House did not join in our bipartisan efforts and enact that bill into law.

By now, the litany of VAWA's successes is familiar, but important. Since this historic legislation first passed in 1994, States have strengthened criminal rape statutes, and every State has made stalking a crime. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent. We have helped to provide victims with critical services like housing and legal protection. Those are just a few highlights. We need to remember that behind those numbers are thousands of lives made immeasurably better.

Despite VAWA's success, there is a pressing need to update and strengthen its protections. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence and one in five women has been raped in her lifetime. These numbers are almost too awful to contemplate.

Real life cases remind us that this reauthorization is long overdue. Last month, I read in the Burlington Free Press the story of Carmen Tarleton, a woman from Thetford, VT. Five years ago, Carmen's estranged husband broke into her home, beat her with a baseball bat, and poured industrial-strength lye on her, severely burning a great deal of her body and nearly blinding her. Her doctors said that she had suffered ``the most horrific injury a human being could suffer.'' Today, she is nearly blind, disfigured, and continues to experience pain from her injuries. Despite this, Carmen is courageously sharing her story.

Stories like this one remind us that every day that we do not pass legislation that will help to prevent horrific violence and assist victims, more people are suffering. Late last year while Congress failed to act on our bipartisan bill, we saw tragic domestic violence- related murder-suicides in Missouri and Colorado. We also learned of harrowing new accounts of sexual assaults on college campuses. These are just more examples of the kind of tragedies that unfold every day across the country.

The Leahy-Crapo bill would support the use of techniques proven to help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It would increase VAWA's focus on sexual assault and push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence.

This reauthorization will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities, where one recent study found that almost three in five native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. It will allow services to get to those in the LGBT community who have had trouble accessing services in the past.

Every VAWA reauthorization Congress has passed has taken steps to help immigrant victims of violence, who are often particularly vulnerable. Last year's bill included a modest increase in the number of U visas available to immigrant victims who help law enforcement, which is good for victims and for law enforcement. Unfortunately, that provision led to a technical objection from House Republican leaders. In the interest of making quick and decisive progress, we introduce the bill today without that provision in order to remove any excuse for House inaction. We have retained other important improvements for immigrant victims in the bill we introduce today as part of our commitment to ensuring that all victims are protected.

I still believe strongly in the U visa increase that was in last year's Leahy-Crapo bill. I authored that provision after hearing from law enforcement and the experts in the field. I think it is needed to encourage assistance to law enforcement and to protect immigrant women and I remain committed to enacting it and ensuring that the

needed U visa increase is adopted. I intend to work to include it in comprehensive immigration reform legislation that we should consider early in this Congress. It will be part of our immigration reform effort.

We have included, as well, in this year's bill the specific provisions of the SAFER bill that I worked out with Senator Cornyn and Senator Grassley last year and that then passed the Senate unanimously late in the session. I hope that Senators who opposed VAWA last year while supporting those provisions will now join with us in our effort to enact VAWA reauthorization that includes those provisions, as well.

All of the provisions in our bill were developed with the help of victims and with those who assist them every day. They are common sense measures that will help real people. It is past time for Congress to move beyond partisan politics in order to provide help to victims of domestic and sexual violence.

We can make these concrete and important changes in the law that will prevent terrible violence and provide more help to victims. There is no excuse for delay. I hope all Senators will join me in quickly moving this bill through the Senate and that the House will quickly work with us to get a strong VAWA bill to the President.

I thank Senator Crapo, the lead Senate Republican cosponsor of our bill and Senators Murkowski, Mikulski, Ayotte, Collins, Coons, Durbin, Bennet, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Kirk, Cantwell, Murray, Udall (CO), Casey, and McCaskill, who join us as original cosponsors and have all been strong supporters of VAWA. I look forward to many others joining us to move forward on this vital legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation directed at combating the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. I thank the law enforcement partners who have contributed ideas and Senator Durbin for joining me in this effort. I hope that as Senators become familiar with the proposal, they will see it as a focused approach to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to go after those who engage in the illegal trafficking. This commonsense measure deserves the bipartisan support that will be critical to any effort in the Senate to reduce gun violence in America.

I have heard again and again from Senators on both sides of the aisle that keeping guns away from those who should not have them is a goal worth pursuing. This bill will further that effort. When the President spoke last week about the need for legislative action in the wake of the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, strengthening our law enforcement efforts against illegal gun trafficking was one of the key issues he proposed. This bill will answer that call to action.

Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the first hearing of the 113th Congress on the issue of gun violence. I expect that part of that discussion will include examining various legislative proposals Senators have put forward. We need to move beyond platitudes and toward solutions. It is my hope that as the Committee proceeds we can find areas of common ground.

There is now broad recognition that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a firearm, and that self protection is an essential part of that right. To the extent there used to be a backdrop of uncertainty about the meaning of the Second Amendment, that time is past. I have long believed that the right to bear arms for protection is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has now confirmed the individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. That is no longer questioned. So we can proceed now in this discussion with certainty that Americans' constitutional rights will be preserved while we seek solutions to prevent gun violence.

There is broad agreement that keeping guns away from those suffering from mental illness and criminals is the right thing to do. I am a responsible gun owner. I know that other responsible gun owners will support better enforcement of the laws that exist to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. We cannot allow those who are barred from buying guns to circumvent our laws. That is just common sense.

Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the legal tools necessary to effectively combat illegal firearms trafficking. Congressional inquiry during the last Congress should have put a spotlight on the very difficult legal environment within which law enforcement officials currently operate. In fact, one of the whistleblowers who testified about the misguided tactics used by Federal law enforcement in firearms trafficking investigations in Arizona described the current laws as ``toothless''. If we are to address gun violence, we must respond to this clear vulnerability.

The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will make important changes to Federal firearms statutes to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. This practice typically involves a person who is not prohibited by Federal law purchasing a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person, or at the direction of a drug trafficking or other criminal organization. It is a problem that must be addressed. It not only results in the support of larger criminal organizations, but also in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. It puts both law enforcement officials and law abiding firearms dealers in a very difficult position but more importantly, this makes our citizens and communities less safe.

Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result, prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as lying on a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and profiting from such activity.

The bill I introduce today will add a new provision to our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit serving as a straw purchaser of firearms, and establishes tough penalties for those who purchase firearms for, on behalf of, or with the intent to transfer the firearms to someone prohibited from making that purchase directly. Under current law, it is a crime to transfer a firearm to another with the knowledge that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. This bill would strengthen this existing law by prohibiting such a transfer where the transferor has ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the firearm will be used in relation to criminal activity. The bill does contain important exemptions from the prohibition, namely, the transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a legitimate raffle, auction or contest.

This bill will complement existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the United States.

The provisions laid out in this legislation are focused, commonsense remedies to the very real problem of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing. The bill does not affect Federal firearms licensees, and in no way alters their rights and responsibilities as sellers of a lawful commodity.

As the Senate seeks a way forward to find national solutions to reduce gun violence, I hope Senators from across the political spectrum can work together to find common ground. We have a responsibility and a duty to refine our laws consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Senator, a Vermonter, an American, a father and a grandfather, I am prepared to hear all ideas, listen to all views, and work with Senators from both sides of the aisle. The bill I introduce today is the first of several proposals I expect to support to reduce gun violence. I look forward to discussing it further with fellow Senators and witnesses at the upcoming hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, my good friend from Maryland, Elijah Cummings.

Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my good friend, Ms. Foxx from North Carolina; and I don't doubt her commitment to try to rein in unfunded mandates, and I certainly supported the 1995 effort, as somebody working at that time in local government, because local governments are burdened with many unfunded Federal mandates. No Child Left Behind, for example, comes to mind.

This legislation before us today, however, is not a simple extension of unfunded mandates. It is something else. Mr. Chairman, any lingering doubt about this week's Republican assault, which is orchestrated on the regulatory process as designed to benefit corporate interests, should be laid to rest with this bill.

Agencies are already required to consult with any interested party during the rulemaking process through a robust public participation and comment period. This bill, however, would single out private sector special interests and give them special treatment and an unfair advantage by requiring agencies to consult with them before a rule is even proposed.

The bill further subverts existing law by opening the door for opponents of regulation or delay to invalidate rules through frivolous litigation. Current law expressly prohibits the courts from blocking a new rule based on the advocacy of an agency's analysis. This bill would expand judicial review to give

for-profit special interests a new tool to tie up regulations with unnecessary litigation.

I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that agencies are currently required by existing law and executive order to consider all regulatory alternatives to promote flexibility and to promulgate regulations based on a reasonable determination that the benefits, in fact, justify the costs. That is already in existing law.

Agencies are also required to conduct cost-benefit analyses and increase public participation for all interested parties, not just corporate special interests. Of course, House Republicans also fail to acknowledge that the Obama administration has directed agencies to harmonize rulemaking across agencies and conduct a systematic review of existing regulations to reduce outdated or redundant rules.

Mr. Chairman, if my Republican friends really want to do something meaningful about unfunded mandates, they could work with us to correct the historic failures of the Federal Government to meet its financial obligations to our cash-strapped State and local partners, rather than catering to special, big corporate interests with well-paid lobbyists.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth).

H.R. 899 boasts an Orwellian title that attempts to deceive the public into believing that the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act is simply an innocuous attempt to enhance transparency--rather than the subversive legislative assault on public health, safety, and environmental protections that it truly is.

H.R. 899 is simply an effort to throw a wrench into the rulemaking process, ensuring that private industry is provided privileges and rights far above any other stakeholder in the regulatory process.

In many respects, H.R. 899 represents the Mitt Romney principle on steroids, for it appears that in the minds of our friends on the other side of the aisle, not only is it a fact that ``corporations are people, my friend,'' but under this measure, Republicans appear to be embracing an ethos that treats corporations better than people.

Regrettably, this bill provides private corporations with an unfair consultation advantage over every other stakeholder in the regulatory process. That is indefensible.

Under this bill, Federal agencies would be required to consult with private industry ``before issuance of a proposed rulemaking,'' yet it does not afford the same level of consultation to average citizens who rely on agency rules to preserve and protect their health, welfare, and safety.

There is no justification for enacting an irrational statutory framework that requires the Federal Government to consult with private firms, such as a large agribusiness firm, prior to imposing a rule that will impact that company, yet does not require consultation with public health experts, or everyday Americans who will be forced to live with the consequences of a given regulation.

I cannot defend a regulatory framework that would provide big oil companies, for example, a guaranteed right to

weigh in before any drilling regulation is promulgated, but would not require equal consultation with public interest organizations, such as entities committed to protecting and preserving our Nation's environment and natural resources, or the communities that could be directly impacted by such activities.

To be clear, I strongly support the rights of industry to have an opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules. It fosters more informed, quality rulemaking, and benefits both businesses and our broader society. Indeed, that is why our current administrative procedures mandate that a public comment process be conducted to allow any individual or corporation to participate and provide input and feedback in an equal, fair, and open process. That is current law.

The amendment that Congresswoman Duckworth and I are proposing today would simply ensure that all participants in the rulemaking process be provided equal consultation rights with agencies. For example, as Ranking Member Cummings noted earlier, if the U.S. Department of Agriculture were to propose a public health rule affecting agribusiness in an effort to protect the health of everyday Americans, our amendment would ensure that not only the agribusinesses, but also food safety experts, children's health organizations, medical associations, and scientific entities would also be provided an opportunity to consult with USDA prior to the issuance of the proposed rule.

I strongly urge all Members to support our commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't quite understand the opposition of my friend from Oklahoma; if it is duplicative, then it is harmless. I think clarification to make sure that citizens have the same rights as special interests and corporations is actually a good thing to clarify. I don't think it adds ambiguity; I think it adds clarity, which may be why my good friend opposes it.

I would also ask, at this time, a statement to every Member of Congress endorsing this amendment from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards be entered into the Record.

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

Coalition for Sensible Safeguards,

February 26, 2014.

Dear Representative, The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

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

public health, scientific, consumer, financial reform, and

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

dangerous and harmful ``Unfunded Mandates Information and

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

nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental

standards as well as new financial protections. Given that we

have experienced multiple health and safety disasters in

communities and workplaces across the country in recent

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

necessary public protections.

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

CSS encourages members to support the amendments offered

below:

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

amendment strikes section 5 of the bill, which would

eliminate the current exemption from the Unfunded Mandate

Reform Act for certain independent agencies. This crucial

amendment would ensure that agencies that Congress designated

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

the amendment would ensure that the important regulations of

these agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety

Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are

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

unfunded requirements and can be adopted in a timely and

efficient manner.

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

This amendment adds Section 14 to the bill to clarify that

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

if a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of

the regulatory action exceed its costs. This common-sense

amendment makes clear that regulations whose benefits to

public health and safety exceed the costs to regulated

industries, thereby making them good public investments, are

not legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and unfunded

requirements and can be adopted in a timely and efficient

manner.

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

amendment ensures that other impacted entities, such as

public interest organizations, are provided any opportunity

for consultation afforded to the private sector under the

Act. This commonsense amendment levels the playing field to

allow public interest organizations the same privilege and

access that the legislation only affords to the business

community and ensures that the regulatory process is fair and

open to all stakeholders in an equal manner.

Sincerely,

Katherine McFate,

President and CEO, Center for Effective Government; Co-

chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

Robert Weissman,

Persident, Public Citizen; Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible

Safeguards.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.