Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 527) to amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 50) 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 materials on H.R. 50.

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill was referred to three other committees other than the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We have been in contact with all of them--Judiciary, Budget, and Rules--and they have agreed to discharge the bill from their committees so that we can consider the bill on the floor today. I include for the Record those letters that reflect this understanding between Oversight and Government Reform and the three other committees.

Mr. Chairman, Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ``curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments.''

Twenty years later, we continue to see burdensome unfunded mandates being imposed on State, local, and tribal governments as well as small businesses. Despite high hopes, UMRA, as it is often referred to, had little effect on agency rulemaking because of its limited coverage and its lack of accountability.

In response, H.R. 50 proposes several key reforms to bring needed transparency to how government sets rules that protect our health, our safety, our welfare, as well as the environment. This legislation does this in several key ways.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 50 requires agencies to consult with the private sector when directly impacted by a proposed rule.

Consult with the private sector. That is a great theme. I love the title of this.

It does actually provide more information, more transparency, and engages those people that are affected by these rules. Requiring agency rulemakers to consult with small business owners will bring needed perspective and common sense to how our rules are made. Small businesses want the government to fully understand how regulations impact their ability to create jobs and promote economic growth. Of course we need rules. Of course there are going to be boundaries. But consulting with the private sector is something that has to happen, and government needs their perspective.

The bill makes independent agencies subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. There are hundreds of Federal independent agencies charged with handling responsibilities, such as managing workplace safety and protecting our forests. It is important these entities are accountable to the public when establishing a new rule. H.R. 50 ensures that that will happen.

H.R. 50 requires an UMRA analysis for all final rules. Under current law, an agency can forgo an UMRA analysis by avoiding a notice of proposed rulemaking. GAO reports that 35 percent of major rules are issued without a notice of proposed rulemaking, making it difficult for the public to comment.

In fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of major regulations between $57 billion and $84 billion. We must have a better understanding of those costs before passing them on to State, local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector.

The bill strengthens congressional oversight by requiring agencies to look back at specific regulations when requested by Congress. Before a rule is tested, it is difficult to understand its consequences, including its costs and its benefits. President Obama supported retrospective reviews of regulations by issuing an executive order requiring agencies to periodically review significant regulations, in Executive Order 13563, in January 2011. These retrospective reviews result in regulations that are more effective and less burdensome in achieving their objective. Retrospective analysis can and should inform future rules.

H.R. 50 allows judicial review when agencies fail to fully consider the least costly or least burdensome alternative rule. The bill allows the judicial branch to place a stay on rules when the agency fails to complete the required UMRA analysis. This provides an important check on the executive branch.

H.R. 50 codifies the Congressional Budget Office practice of estimating the true cost of a Federal mandate. When a Federal mandate is proposed, CBO ensures its cost estimates include lost profits, costs passed on to consumers, and behavioral changes as the result of a Federal mandate.

When enacted, UMRA created an important step to inform Congress of the potential burdens of regulatory mandates on both government and the private sector. This way, Congress could weigh any potential benefits as well as any potential burdens. By updating this law, we can help ensure that all parties, from government entities to small businesses, understand the true cost of prospective mandates.

I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). She has poured her heart and soul into this. She believes passionately in this. Her leadership on this bill has brought it to this point today. It has passed three times with bipartisan support in this House, but it is necessary to bring it up again and to share this bill with a new Senate that is now in place.

I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 50. It is good. It is common sense. It is good for this Nation, and it enjoys bipartisan support.

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

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, January 28, 2015.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On January 27, 2015, the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without

amendment H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and

Transparency Act of 2015, by a vote of 20 to 13. The bill was

referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and

Govemment Reform, with an additional referral to the

Committee on the Judiciary.

I ask that you allow the Judiciary Committee to be

discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it

may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no

way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee

on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee.

Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any

response in the bill report filed by the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration, to

memorialize our understanding.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, the prime sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

It would be inaccurate and inappropriate to suggest that this bill bypasses individuals. To the contrary, the bill says, ``and impacted parties within the private sector.'' The definition of ``private sector'' under UMRA--the term ``private sector'' means ``all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals.''

Any assertion on this floor that this gives unilateral priority to the individual corporations and bypasses the individuals, we are trying to give people who are affected by these rules--we are trying to give them the opportunity to be heard.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time left on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point to the bill because it keeps getting repeated on this floor that it doesn't include the public, it doesn't include individuals. That is just not true.

On page 12 of the bill:

Agencies shall, to the extent practicable, seek out the

views of State, local, and tribal governments, and impacted

parties within the private sector.

Definition of private sector: the term ``private sector'' means all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals.

It sounds like a good rhetorical point to keep saying: Oh, we are leaving out the little guy; we are leaving out the public. It does include the public; it does include the individuals; and when these unfunded mandates are placed upon them, this bill would make sure that they are at least asked about it. That is what we are seeking.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make Mr. Cummings aware that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

The one who is in the power position, the one who has got the resources, the one that has got the attorneys is the government. The government is the one that has got all the cards.

All we are asking for is to allow input from individuals, small businesses, big businesses. If you are going to be affected, isn't it common sense to suggest that maybe they should talk to the people that they are going to put this mandate on? Let's have a discussion, a dialogue, get some input from them?

The name of this bill is very, very accurate, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. What are we afraid of, asking them the question: How are you going to be impacted? What is this going to do to the economy?

What I hear from my constituents--and I have heard it from outside of Utah's Third Congressional District--is the Federal Government comes in with its big, heavy hand, and they have no voice, no opportunity. It is just laid upon them.

I appreciate Dr. Foxx and what she is doing. We also hear from State, local, and tribal governments, from small businesses and business organizations that are in support of this bill.

In fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of major regulations was between $57 billion and $84 billion. There is room. There is appropriate use of regulations. To suggest that we are opposed to all regulations is irresponsible.

I think there are good regulations that are in place--they make our country better--but there needs to be a process and a communication and input from individuals that are affected by these regulations.

We have got to understand the costs and how we are passing these unfunded mandates on to State and local governments. This is an important part of the process.

Updating this law, we can ensure all parties, from government entities to small businesses to individuals, understand the true costs of the prospective mandates.

This bill should successfully pass in the House again, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I applaud Dr. Foxx from North Carolina, the prime sponsor of this, for moving this legislation.

I would urge, my colleagues, a ``yea'' vote on H.R. 50, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Congressman Reed and what he is trying to do here. I think this makes a lot of sense.

His amendment asks agencies to consider the effects of regulatory action upon private property owners. The amendment furthers the bill's intent to

provide more input from private sector entities and taxpayers affected by these regulations. It thinks of farms and other types of public land issues that we deal with, particularly out West, but across the Nation.

Federal regulators should consider the effects of any regulation on private property owners.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, a cost-benefit analysis prior to the implementation of a regulation requires a number of assumptions that make an accurate analysis difficult, if not impossible.

H.R. 50 allows committee chairmen and ranking members to ask for the retrospective reviews of specific regulations.

I think there needs to be a degree of deference and some respect for the idea that it is for committee chairmen and ranking members, both sides of the aisle, not just based on some whim. I think it is offensive to suggest that it be just some whimsical thing.

This allows an important check on any pre-implementation cost-benefit analysis, and these retrospective reviews better clarify the true costs of regulation. Even President Obama supports retrospective reviews and issued an executive order requiring agencies to conduct them.

More importantly, retrospective reviews work. In April of 2014, the GAO issued a report on retrospective reviews at 22 executive agencies. That report found that more than 90 percent of retrospective regulation reviews led the agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulation text--90 percent.

However, the pace of retrospective review is much slower than planned, and the 22 agencies reviewed by the GAO had plans to conduct more than 650 retrospective reviews but had only completed 246 of them as of August of 2013.

As you can see, the agencies are already doing this work. It is good to go back and review. We shouldn't be afraid of that. We should encourage it.

This provision in the bill simply allows Congress to work with agencies to prioritize regulatory areas most important to the American taxpayer. We need to maintain the ability to make such requests, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, that is some good creative thinking right there. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to highlight, again, that when there was a report done by the GAO, they found that 90 percent of retrospective regulation reviews led agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulatory text.

All this does is ask for a report. It doesn't repeal it. It is not going to slow it down. What it does is ask for a report. That is an important process to go through, and when we have gone through it in the past, 90 percent of the time, according to the GAO, it has led to revisions that are important.

It is very difficult to understand what is going to happen on the front end. All we are asking for in this bill is let's consult with the individuals, the property owners, others who are affected, and then, if we need a report, and we are going to limit that to chairmen and ranking members, that is an appropriate thing to do.

What are we afraid of? We are just trying to get transparency to the issue and be able to highlight this.

I worry, when you talk about the numbers of reviews and how far behind, it just shows the massive numbers of regulations that go through this process. We should be able to review those. There are real Americans that are affected by this every day.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate my colleague from Virginia. I appreciate his tenacity and good work on these issues and on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

But I do have to suggest that if the economy is struggling, Federal regulators should be extra concerned about imposing undue and unnecessary costs on to the American public and the private sector job creators.

H.R. 50 helps ensure that regulations that impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector are fully analyzed and considered.

Keep in mind, we are focused here on unfunded mandates. This amendment would repeal this helpful legislation if the GDP rate grows at a rate of less than 5 percent. To me, this is counterproductive.

GDP is a deliberately broad measure of economic growth. The GDP does not reflect the impact a regulatory mandate might have on a State or local government or a portion of the private sector, nor does it reflect the impact of regulations as a whole.

Ultimately, GDP growth is not a substitute for a sensible regulatory analysis and process. I would argue that,

regardless of GDP growth or reduction, we need to allow, particularly these local governments, these tribal governments, these private individuals--it is the little guy that has this unfunded mandate thrust upon them that we have to review.

So repealing H.R. 50 if the GDP is failing to grow is contrary to the very purpose of this bill and, therefore, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, to take a metric of the gross domestic product, the entire economy, and then have that be the weighted factor by what may happen to a dairy farmer, for instance, who is out there in Utah or Kansas or Colorado is not the way that we should be determining whether or not H.R. 50 is in place.

If the economy is waning, if the economy is decreasing, if our production overall for our Nation is declining, that may be the very key indicator that we have thrust too many unfunded mandates upon the little guy, the dairy farmer, the person who has got a transmission shop. It could be a whole host of things. It may be upon private property owners. It could be--you name it.

Pretty much in this country, there are mandates that are thrust upon people, and they feel like they have no ability, no understanding why this happens. They don't feel like they have a voice in the process.

So I stand in opposition to this amendment. So, to the overall gross economy, to say that we are just going to repeal that, H.R. 50, and get rid of our ability to ask people to consult, ask the government agencies to consult with local governments, to consult with private individuals, to talk to small businesses, we are going to just get rid of that because the economy is waning?

I would argue that part of the reason our economy hasn't taken off is there are too many unfunded mandates. The government imposes these, and they don't have a full understanding of what is causing these people to not hire more people, to invest more capital.

So I stand in opposition to this. I appreciate the gentleman who offered it, but I stand in opposition to this amendment. I would urge my colleagues a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the body, thank the Speaker, and the process by which we did this. This bill came up in regular order in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We had a full and complete markup. That was followed by going to the Rules Committee.

Every single amendment that was offered at the Rules Committee was made in order, two Democrat amendments as well as the Republican amendment. We had good and lively debate about those, and we just voted on those amendments. I appreciate that.

From my heart, I will tell you that I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from Illinois and everybody else in this body to attack and go after--defend the innocent and make sure that we attack domestic violence because it is so prevalent in every aspect of our society, but I would suggest to you that this is the wrong amendment.

What this does, it does not force the Federal Government to actually work with the individuals that are affected. What H.R. 50 does, what this bill does is to make sure that the Federal Government consults with individuals, it consults with small businesses, those that are affected by mandates.

I want the Federal Government--in fact, I would love to codify the idea that the Federal Government in this case and what you offer in the motion shouldn't talk to these people, they should talk to them. We want them to talk to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. They should be the first people that they call. If you want to know what is happening in this country, go talk to the individuals who are affected by this.

What this legislation, H.R. 50, does is to make sure that individuals are asked before; it makes sure that nothing is repealed. We don't get to unilaterally repeal things. I heard the word ``repeal.''

No, there are reports that we need to access and look at, and so if we truly want to get after domestic violence and these heinous crimes-- these awful, hideous crimes--then you want to vote in favor of H.R. 50 and make sure that the Federal Government does go and consult with the victims of crime.

I oppose this motion to recommit and vote in favor of H.R. 50 by Dr. Foxx.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 527.

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

Good morning, Mr. Conyers. It is good to see you.

Six long years into the Obama administration, and notwithstanding some fleeting, recent signs, jobs have yet to recover from the recession. Wages also have not recovered, and the rate of new business startups has not recovered as well.

Instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historical levels. Real wages have fallen. Dependency on government assistance has increased. Our economy is failing to give enough hardworking Americans the confidence they need to start new small businesses and create new jobs.

At the root of our problem are, more than anything else, the endless drain to Washington of hard-earned income that working people and small businesses need to turn things around in their homes and communities and Washington's endless placement of regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth.

That regulatory burden hits small businesses especially hard. Small businesses generate 63 percent of net new private sector jobs and employ nearly half of America's private sector workers; yet they have to pay significantly more to comply with Federal regulations than do larger employers.

Poll after poll has demonstrated that the level of Federal regulations coming from Washington is at the top of the list of obstacles faced by America's small businesses, our top job creators.

This is not fair, and it is exactly the wrong burden to place on small businesses as this Nation struggles to produce a true jobs and wages recovery. Congress can and should act to free small businesses of the burdens and waste associated with excessive Federal regulations so that more jobs will be available to Americans trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.

That is why prompt passage of the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act is so important. This legislation will, for the first time in nearly 20 years, overhaul the laws that govern how Federal regulators should consider--and minimize--the adverse impacts of new regulations on small businesses.

Primarily, the bill reinforces the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It only requires agencies to do what current law tries to achieve and what common sense dictates should be done.

However, current law is beset by loopholes, and those loopholes must be closed. That is what the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, at long last, does.

For example, the bill mandates that all agencies, not just the current few, work with small business review panels early in the rulemaking process for major rules, before agencies become entrenched in their proposed paths, to help small businesses better and more effectively point out to agencies what is the best path. The bill also requires agencies to assess not just the direct effects of new regulation on small businesses but also indirect effects, which often can be substantial.

The bill also, for the first time, authorizes the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to be the one consistent authority on regulatory flexibility requirements the law imposes on all agencies. This will, at long last, curb the agencies' tendencies to interpret the law to suit their own individual whims and will force agencies to focus on the common needs of small business.

The minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen?

Small businesses will have a real chance to be heard before agencies, effectively, make up their minds. Agencies will have better information upon which to tailor their regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on small businesses. Agencies will have fewer opportunities to escape requirements to hear those businesses and gather that better information, and small businesses will be freer than they have been in decades to devote their resources to what they do best--create the new jobs, products, and services that can drive the economy forward to true and lasting recovery.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act recognizes that economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators. It represents a critical means to convert the recognition into reality.

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

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2015.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 527, the Small

Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew

Pickford.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Elmendorf,

Director.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 527, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of

2015

Summary: H.R. 527 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) to expand the number of rules covered by the RFA

and to require agencies to perform additional analysis of

regulations that affect small businesses. The legislation

also would provide new authorities to the Small Business

Administration's (SBA's) Office of Advocacy to intervene and

provide support for agency rulemaking. Finally, H.R. 527

would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to

report on the implementation of the legislation.

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 527 would cost $55

million over the 2015-2020 period, assuming appropriation of

the necessary funds. Enacting the bill could affect direct

spending by agencies not funded through annual

appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.

CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by

those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 527

would not affect revenues.

H.R. 527 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

If any federal agencies increase their mandatory fees to

offset the costs of implementing the additional analysis

required by the bill, H.R. 527 would increase the cost of an

existing mandate on private entities to pay those fees. CBO

expects that if such mandatory fees are increased as a result

of the bill, the additional cost of the mandate in any one

year would fall well below the annual threshold established

in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2015,

adjusted annually for inflation).

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated

budgetary effect of H.R. 527 is shown in the following table.

The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions

370 (commerce and housing credit), 800 (general government),

and all budget functions that include funding for agencies

that issue regulations affecting small businesses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

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

I hear constantly when we are on the floor with bills, which sometimes are bipartisan and sometimes are not, that the President says he is going to veto them. I hope that is not the case, because when it comes to saying that the President is going to veto and his actually doing it, they are two different things. I hope the President works with us on this.

Again, we extend our hand across the aisle here and to the other side of the Capitol to simply say to the regulators that this bill does not want to regulate the regulators. It wants the regulators to use common sense and to get input from the American people--the middle class--and from the people who create jobs, the small businesses, to see what they have to say.

I worked in a factory before I went to college and law school, and I worked my way up to mid-level management. When we did things, I brought in everyone--the people who even worked the machinery. We talked about things, and we resolved many, many things, but we got input from everyone.

As far as letters from people who support the bill, I have a list of 159 names and businesses. This is dated February 3, 2015, from A to Z-- from the Adhesive and Sealant Council to woodworking machinery associations. All of these 159 small businesses support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have been doing some research over these couple of days. This administration alone has implemented over 75,000 pages of new regulations. I just read some figures earlier on this morning that, if we get rid of this ridiculous regulation--and I am not saying all regulation; we do need oversight regulation--almost $1 trillion a year will be added to the economy and almost 1 million people will be added to work on a yearly basis. This is just excellent stuff.

I want to give you an example from my district, Pennsylvania's 10th District. I live in a little village called Cogan Station outside of Williamsport, which is the home of Little League World Series Baseball. I live in the middle of five farms, and I have been there for 15 years.

Pursuant to the Navigable Waters Act, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have said that, if it rains and if a puddle forms on the farm-- in an attempt for this administration to get more control over our lives--because of the Navigable Waters Act, the EPA and the Army Corps have control now over that farm and can shut it down.

Now, I have been there for 15 years in the middle of these five farms, and I have yet to see as much as a rowboat go through. So this is just an example of how ridiculous this legislation can get.

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

Mr. Chair, I have the distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my good friend, to speak on behalf of us.

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

I understand the responsibility of having oversight over any business, but let me give you a couple of examples, again, from my district where a small community bank, who is the primary lender of small businesses, instead of hiring more tellers to expand the business and provide better service for their small business clients, had to hire three people just to review and keep up with regulatory reform that applies to large national and international banks who are lending hundreds of millions of dollars.

That is not the case with smalltown banks. They are lending money to the young man and woman who got a job, saved some money, want to buy a car, and have to go to the bank and say: Can you lend me $10,000? The paperwork that the bank has to go through to do that is costing jobs and costing our economy.

I just got a call yesterday from one of my constituents. The Amish in my district were putting a roof on a small barn they had. OSHA stopped by and

shut it down and fined the Amish because they didn't have helmets on. They only had their straw hats. So he put them out of work for a couple of weeks. They had to pay a fine, and then they have to go buy helmets to put a small roof on a small barn.

I have a constituent from my district who has a little grocery store, and he just had a shipment of bread delivered. It just so happened that an inspector was there, and the bread was brought in through the dock door and set next to, inside the dock door. He was fined because the bread, which is wrapped and on racks, was sitting too close to the dock door.

These are the types of regulation to which we are referring that crush jobs and are killing this economy. One of the inspectors was asked: Why are you doing this?

The inspector simply said, and according to my constituent, arrogantly said: Because I can.

That is no way for an employee of the United States Government to be talking to someone who helps pay his wages.

So with that, Mr. Chair, this is a good piece of legislation. This is common sense, and this is very simple. Let's make the regulators do more with less. There are no agencies or departments in the Federal Government that can tell me that they are running as efficiently as they possibly can.

My good friend, the ranking member, said it is going to cost a great deal to have this rule, this legislation, implemented and the departments and agencies follow the rule. No. You know what the departments and agencies have to do? They have to do just exactly what small business operators throughout this country do: do more with less, and put in a good, hard day's work.

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

Madam Chair, I just simply want to say that I support this legislation. I tell my children on a weekly basis--they can recite it verbatim--that if it were not for our veterans, if it were not for our military personnel and our servicemembers that are working now, my children wouldn't have what they have today. So I want to reinforce that.

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

Mr. Chairman, one of the key failings of existing law is that it allows different agencies to interpret differently the terms of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This allows agencies to find loopholes at their pleasure and evade the requirements of the law.

The bill remedies this defect by granting the Small Business Administration's Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy authority to write regulations to govern all agencies' compliance with the RFA and

Mr. Chair, I share and welcome the gentleman's concerns about the impacts of regulations on jobs, but the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting this bill.

At the heart of the bill are reforms to make sure agencies better identify the potential jobs impact of new rules; that includes not only identifying and minimizing the adverse jobs impact, but maximizing positive job benefits. It is right there in subsection 2(c) on page 3 of the bill.

If the gentleman wants to maximize job creation, the way to do it is to make sure the provisions designed to maximize job benefits apply to all rules, including those that OMB believes will result in net job creation.

Why stop at just helping to create a net increase in jobs, which could mean as little as just one net job? Why not make sure agencies always work with small businesses under the bill's provisions to help create the most new jobs possible and prevent the destruction of the most jobs possible? Isn't that what makes sense as the Nation tries to recover from the jobs depression?

Further, why create a carve-out from the bill that gives the executive branch an incentive to manipulate its jobs impact analyses to avoid the requirements of the bill rather than comply with them?

I would also like to bring to the Chair's attention, this administration highly overinflates--or underinflates, whatever side you are looking at--the unemployment rate.

In the unemployment rate, they are not taking into account the almost 1 million people that are not looking for work, and that is normally taken into consideration. They are also taking into account as a person being employed as this example: a person who mows his neighbor's lawn for 20 bucks because he doesn't have a job. That is considered, according to this administration, a job.

Multiple reports clearly prove that the cost of Federal regulation to the U.S. economy, manufacturing, and small business, and Ten Thousand Commandments, these are reports from just last year, and they give the accurate account of the unemployment rate.

My good colleague on the other side of the aisle refers to a report from 2010. We should be referring to the latest reports as I hold them in my hand.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes to carve out an exception to the bill for Food and Drug Administration rules related to consumer safety. I am all for consumer safety. All of us support the protection of consumer safety, but it is my fervent hope that all of us also support small business jobs and want to protect them.

That, of course, was the point of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the first place, to continue to allow agencies like the FDA to protect consumers but, at the same time, to start accounting for and avoiding-- where possible--adverse impacts on small businesses.

If agencies had faithfully done what they were supposed to do under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, then we wouldn't be here today, but they haven't; instead, they have routinely tried to evade that law. That has to stop.

Small businesses create jobs, and jobs are the key to economic recovery. To help small businesses to create jobs, we need to reduce-- not increase--the regulatory burden on small businesses.

The FDA is a major regulatory agency, and it is not exempt from the RFA as it currently stands. Now is not the time to start walking back the RFA's requirements. This amendment simply is not consistent with the spirit of small business--the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act--or the needs of today's small business job creators.

If the gentlelady's concern is to make sure that the law allows the FDA to issue new emergency rules to protect consumer safety, then let me assure her, there is no need to worry. Subsection 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA already allows agencies to dispense with notice and comment for good cause.

Since the RFA only applies in notice and comment rulemakings, a fact the bill does not change, nothing will hinder the FDA from issuing emergency rules if the bill is enacted.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our leader.

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

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

This motion to recommit presents the perfect opportunity for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to turn the page. Six long years into the Obama administration, our constituents feel trapped in a job depression. This bill offers one of the best chances we have to really start to turn things around for our constituents.

The bill contains clear, commonsense reforms that will take Washington's regulatory boot off the neck of small businesses in all of our districts so they can create the new jobs our constituents need. The bill contains numerous Democrat-sponsored amendments, making it a truly bipartisan product.

The bill, with bipartisan support, has already passed the House three times in the past two Congresses only to die an obstructionist death at the hands of the former Senate majority leader, who, by the way, the voters threw out of the majority last November. We now have a chance to pass the bill again at the very start of this Congress and to send it over to a Senate that will actually consider it. We should all seize this opportunity.

But what would this motion to recommit do?

It would, once again, inflict on the American people the ways of obstruction. It would block the bill from passage. It would prevent the bill from promptly reaching the Senate and helping to create new jobs for our constituents.

Let's all make this a vote to end the obstruction. With this vote, help this Congress turn the page the voters sent us here to turn. Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This legislation may be well intended, but it would have unintended consequences that would make the government less efficient and less effective.

I stood here just 4 months ago when the House, for the second time, considered a package of special interest bills, including this one. I said then that the Republican leadership in the House cannot fool the American people by passing the same bad bills over and over again, yet, Mr. Chairman, here we go again.

Yesterday, the House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 56th time. Today, we are considering an antiregulatory bill the House has considered three times before. Tomorrow, we will consider another antiregulatory bill the House has also passed before.

H.R. 50, the bill we are considering today, would add red tape to the rulemaking process in an effort to slow down or halt agency rules.

One thing that is different this time around is that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that H.R. 50 as reported would increase direct spending by $18 million over the next 10 years. CBO estimates that this increase would primarily impact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a bureau that was established to protect our constituents.

The majority inserted a last-minute provision last night after the Rules Committee meeting to address this problem. The majority's fix, however, does nothing to reduce the cost of the bill.

The majority instead inserted language to cut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's budget by $36 million in fiscal year 2016. Cutting CFPB's budget by $36 million while also requiring the agency to comply with significant new requirements is absurd.

On Saturday, The Huffington Post published an article titled, ``Congress Revives Gingrich-Era Law to Thwart Obama.'' The article said:

Republicans in Congress aim to revamp an antiregulatory law

from the Newt Gingrich era in an effort to paralyze new

financial, environmental, and labor rules with a never-ending

string of court challenges.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was enacted as a part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Even in the context of the extreme agenda of the Contract with America, Congress included several limitations in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

This bill would repeal those limitations. For example, under this bill, agencies would be required to consult with regulated industries on proposed rules before they are even made public.

For example, if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau planned to propose a new rule to protect consumers from abusive mortgage practices, banks would get advance access to the rule and the opportunity to shape it before our constituents, the consumers.

I believe that businesses should have the opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules, but they should do it through the normal public comment process just like other stakeholders.

H.R. 50 would also expand judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The statute currently prohibits courts from using its requirements to delay or invalidate a rule.

This bill eliminates that restriction which would allow regulated industries to use the law to slow down rulemakings.

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

That would mean that the independent regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would have to submit their rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review which could undermine their independence.

Section 12 of the bill would require an agency to perform retrospective review, including an additional cost-benefit analysis of any existing rules if requested by the chairman or ranking member of a committee. It is interesting that we always talk about being able to predict what is going to go on in the business world. This certainly would add a high level of unpredictability.

I will offer an amendment at the appropriate time to strike that provision. These flaws are reason enough to oppose this bill.

The most important reason is that we rely on agency rulemakings to protect our children, protect our workers, protect our economy, and protect our constituents, the folks who sent us here.

That is why 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 opposing this bill.

Here is what the letter said: ``The costs of deregulation should be obvious by now: the Wall Street economic collapse, various food and product safety recalls, and numerous disasters, including the recent Dan River coal ash spill in North Carolina and the Freedom Industries chemical spill in West Virginia, demonstrate the need for a regulatory system that protects the public, not corporate interests.''

Congress should be moving forward to protect the public from harm, not rolling back the clock and weakening important safeguards.

Yesterday, the White House issued a statement opposing this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a new member of our committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I just want to remind the gentleman before he leaves the Chamber that there is truth here. The truth is that the CBO has already estimated that this bill will cost some $18 million. There is also truth here with regard to what has happened to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--the very bureau that this Congress established to protect our consumers on a day-to-day basis--and its losing some $36 million. That is the transparency.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

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

I just want to be clear. Many things concern me about this legislation. We need to be very careful about this.

We have a situation here where this is clearly an effort to give Big Business an advantage. All the speakers on our side have talked to that. We can go around saying we don't need regulations, but regulations are very, very important. This President has done a lot with regard to addressing the issue of regulations.

There is something else that is happening here that really bothers me. There was a tremendous effort by the other side when we were trying to get the consumer financial protection bill passed.

After seeing our constituents abused over and over again, we bring about an agency that would bring them some type of protection, and here, we are taking away money from an agency that already needs money, the very agency that is there to help our constituents. That concerns me.

The other thing that concerns me is that we have an extra layer here. It makes it much more difficult now with regard to rulemaking, and then to have the courts have the ability to delay and basically take away rules is unprecedented. That is something that even Newt Gingrich didn't do.

We need to look at what we are doing and bring a sense of balance, and the other side will say that balance is brought about because private industry is given an opportunity to be involved in the process.

Well, they really do have a tremendous advantage because, as Ms. Norton said, they are the ones that have the lawyers. They are the ones who have the big money. They are the ones now who will be able to come in before the regulations are even formulated and have their say while the public won't be in that kind of position.

Let's not kid ourselves. We are putting our constituents at a decided disadvantage, no matter how you look at it. This is a triumph for Big Business.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to really oppose this amendment. This amendment would add a requirement that agencies evaluate the impacts of a rule on private property owners. I do not object to this requirement in isolation.

The problem is that this amendment adds one more requirement to the layers of red tape this bill already adds to the rulemaking process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 12 of the bill.

Section 12 would require an agency to perform a retrospective analysis of any existing rule any time a committee chairman or ranking member asked for it.

Under this section, any one of nearly 100 Members of Congress could tie an agency up in knots, forcing review after review of any existing rule.

I asked the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to analyze the constitutionality of this section. CRS provided my staff with a memo that found that section 12 of H.R. 50 raises a serious constitutional question.

CRS evaluated the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha. In that case, the Court held that Congress can exercise its legislative authority only through bicameral passage of legislation that is then presented to the President.

CRS evaluated whether giving individual Members of Congress the authority to demand agency action would violate that requirement.

Here is what CRS found: ``It could be argued that imbuing certain Members with the authority to demand that an agency prepare a report under section 12 is an action of sufficient legislative character and effect as to trigger the bicameralism and presentment requirements of article I.''

CRS also found there is a ``tenable argument that the provisions of section 12 raise constitutional concerns of the magnitude addressed in Chadha.''

Congress certainly has a legitimate interest in conducting oversight of agency actions. It is appropriate for House committees to request information about agency rules and how they can be improved, but committees already have the opportunity to conduct that type of oversight.

We don't need to require in legislation that an agency conduct an entirely new cost-benefit analysis for potentially every rule on the books at the whim of individual Members of Congress. CRS notes that Congress could conduct these reviews as part of its oversight prerogative.

CRS goes on to note, however, that if these reviews were considered part of congressional oversight rather than an exercise of legislative authority, they ``would leave open significant and unresolved questions regarding the parameters of congressional oversight authority.'' These questions are significant enough to warrant stripping this section from the bill.

In addition, section 12 would threaten the ability of agencies to carry out their missions. The more time an agency spends responding to demands for rule reviews, the less time it is spending performing the work it is supposed to be doing.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have on this side?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

One of the things that we have to keep in mind, the President is the President. You are talking about 100 Members of Congress, as opposed to the President. The President has done this, and the chairman admits that they are already behind.

So now what we are going to do is bring in a whole new 100 people, at a whim, to say, We don't like something and let's pull it back.

No. I think we are better than that, and I think it does have constitutional problems. I think enough is being done, and I am glad to hear somebody giving the President some credit for something. The fact is that he has been most aggressive in this area.

I don't think that this provision is needed, and I would urge Members to vote in favor of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment. The legislation we are considering today has been sold by supporters as a jobs bill. Give me a break.

This amendment simply says that if the economy doesn't improve the way the bill's supporters say it will, then the bill will sunset. It is as simple as that. The amendment would leave the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act untouched. This sunset provision would only impact the changes made by this bill. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I also express through you my wishes for her recovery, and I also appreciate her patriotism in doing her duty to God and country here today despite her respiratory duress. I hope that goes

noted, that she is doing a great job representing her party on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act and the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.

The titles of these bills, while lengthy, seem to suggest that somehow these efforts are designed to increase transparency or help small business. Their actual impact is quite frankly the opposite.

By allowing rules to be written behind closed doors by big businesses and effectively preventing Federal agencies from promoting the national interests as they are supposed to and adding additional bureaucratic red tape and paperwork, these bills represent an assault on the health and safety of our Nation's families and threaten to drown our government in mountains and mountains of unnecessary paperwork.

I think that the release of the President's budget this week shows a contrast between the priorities of both parties' agendas. The President's budget focused on Main Street, offering new ideas for how we can meet the infrastructure needs of our country and reform our corporate tax system to make American businesses more competitive.

Unfortunately, what we continue to see here in this body from the Republicans is a ``Groundhog Day'' scenario where every day, every week--it is like the movie--we are talking about the same thing over and over again.

We have acted on repealing the Affordable Care Act 56 times in this body. Here, we are back with another set of bills that echo other bills again and again and again.

Now, I understand why many people want to do this once and go through it. People ran on repealing ObamaCare, and people ran on passing these bills. Once they are done, we will see what the other body does.

But to keep coming back, rather than dealing with the critical national priorities, I think simply shows a detachment from reality. That is one of the reasons the public holds this body in such low regard.

The bill that we considered 2 weeks ago added 65 new analytical requirements to the process of rulemaking--more red tape, more hurdles. I think what we are seeing here today is maybe that is not enough red tape. We are now looking at bills that allow big business to weigh in before the public, creating even more hurdles before regulations become public and are implemented.

H.R. 50 would effectively require agencies to consult with the private sector before the public is even made aware of the bill, let alone engaged in the rulemaking. This blocks transparency and handicaps public input.

I agree we want to make sure that business has the opportunity to weigh in, but we want to make sure that every stakeholder in a rulemaking process has the opportunity to weigh in equally.

In my State of Colorado, I would be concerned about the erosion of our protection of our great natural areas like Rocky Mountain National Park which is a protected site. We celebrated its 100th anniversary as a national park just last week.

In those 100 years, the Rocky Mountains have been thriving. If you visit the park today, you can find streams, elk, bighorn sheep, and fields of wildflowers; but if we hadn't designated the park a national treasure and created a comprehensive management plan for its protection, we might very well have lost not only something that relates to our national pride and is beautiful but, frankly, is the economic driver in Estes Park and Grand County for much of the economic activity in and around the National Park.

H.R. 50 would threaten the ability of the National Park Service to create the kind of management plan that the economy has thrived under in my home State of Colorado and in my district. It would essentially create a veto power for legislators and interests that don't believe in the protection of public lands or are willing to threaten the health of our families for enhancement of their bottom line. There is always going to be somebody that objects.

Again, we have a thriving tourism economy relating to Rocky Mountain National Park, but I am sure there is some company somewhere that would have some interest that is countervailing to the interests of job creation in our community, and that is why we need to have a transparent and accessible process of listening to stakeholders in as expeditious a way as possible.

We need a system that allows the Fort Collins native who hikes through the Rockies every weekend or the New Yorker who visits the snowcapped mountains every spring the ability to participate in protecting those natural resources and the protection of our public health.

We need to listen to the small businesses, the hospitality sector, and the restaurants and lodges that serve our tourism communities, but by allowing an unfair advantage to out-of-State corporate interests, we threaten the very principle that makes us American, the ability to participate in our decisions of government at the level closest to where we are affected.

H.R. 50 is a dangerous precedent for policy. It allows additional red tape to be thrown at government agencies, representing unnecessary delays and costs that prevent us from creating jobs and growing our economy.

We need to move forward with a middle class agenda for our country rather than continuing to live in this Groundhog Day scenario of repetitious bills that don't discuss how to grow our economy or grow the middle class.

Yesterday, this body attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 56th time. Today, the Republicans are making two attempts at what I consider to be a very similar thing, damage the regulatory process at all costs, which we already did and we are doing again.

They want to see additional red tape and bureaucracy added--whether it is clean air, whether it is clean water, whether it is consumers, whether it is protecting our children--regardless of the particular area with which we operate.

Instead of having a cumulative look at regulations, we should have a look at cumulative impacts of all the legislation that has been brought before this body and how that impacts small businesses and regulations.

Earlier this year, the House passed the Regulatory Accountability Act. That bill alone added 65 new checkpoints to the regulatory process. This bill would prevent transparency and allow big business to weigh in on regulations--before small businesses, before consumers, before other stakeholders--and add an additional tier and red tape to the regulatory process.

We need to move forward with improving our regulatory structure. I don't think there is any disagreement about that. Some of that can be done through executive action and some in a collaborative, bipartisan way to streamline the regulatory process to reduce hurdles for small businesses while meeting the goals of protecting the American public. Unfortunately, these bills do neither of those.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of legislation that would help veterans make it in America by establishing a pilot program to encourage the hiring of veterans in manufacturing jobs.

To discuss our thoughtful proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a leader on veterans issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

When you hear the gentleman from Georgia or the gentlewoman from North Carolina talk about the intent behind these bills, they sound great. We all want a streamlined regulatory process and to help make it more efficient.

Unfortunately, when you look at what these bills do, they do the opposite. They add another tier to regulation, with Big Business having a new say in and above what small businesses and community members can do. They add red tape and legal requirements to regulation that don't exist now under statute.

It, again, seems to me like the opposite of trying to get input so our regulations best affect the needs of each community, and we have diverse needs across this country.

My district is 62 percent Federal land, so when decisions are made on Federal land, like a travel management plan, and on where people can bike and where they can hunt and fish, we want to have our say. The last thing we want is some out-of-state corporate interest determining in some process before we even get our say on how these Federal lands are used.

It is absolutely critical that we empower our communities, and this bill does the opposite in the name of adding more bureaucracy and red tape to the regulatory process, presumably, in an attempt to delay or make it less effective than it is.

Now, we value, as Americans, the work that the Clean Water Act does, the Clean Air Act, the EPA, our essential protections around public health. They are very, very important. And I think our colleagues agree that they don't want to take those on head on.

But this bill would prevent some of those very agencies from doing the work that we have charged them to do, keeping our air clean, our water clean, and they need to be able to do that work and involve local impact in making sure that they do it in a way that protects American health and helps grow our economy and create jobs.

We need to make sure that we don't have dumping of industrial waste in the Colorado River, poisoning millions of recreational users. We want to make sure that drilling sites don't use chemical compounds that are toxic or cause birth defects.

We can and we must do better. The march of science moves forward. If there are thoughtful improvements to the regulatory process that will help reduce costs and reduce red tape, rather than add red tape, we are happy to have those discussions. But, unfortunately, these bills fall short of that mark. That is why I oppose the rule and the bill.

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

My colleague, Ms. DelBene, has offered a concept around a pilot program to encourage the hiring of veterans in manufacturing jobs, the type of middle class agenda that the American public wants this Congress to work on, rather than one that cuts them out of the very rulemaking that is designed to protect us Americans from our health hazards and protect our public lands.

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

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; thank the mover of this legislation; my ranking member, Mr. Johnson; and my ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, for their leadership and for bringing us together around a universal concept.

We all are promoting jobs, Mr. Chairman. Not one of us on this floor wants to in any way undermine jobs. We want people to work, and we want small businesses to have the opportunity to thrive.

What I am talking about is the reality of protecting the American people when it comes to unique issues of health care. I am not going to cite the name of this individual, but what I am going to do is to read just a paragraph from Al Kamen, K-a-m-e-n, ``In the Loop'':

``As a matter of fact, I think this is one where I think I

can illustrate the point,'' he recalled telling her. ``I

don't have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt

out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says, `We

don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving

the restroom.' The market will take care of this. It is one

example.''

Now, I have a different perspective, and so my amendment under this legislation asks to make an exception for rules that are dealing with consumer safety, saving lives.

My amendment makes an exception for rules from the Food and Drug Administration, commonly known as the FDA. This bill, H.R. 527, seeks to reform the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and 1996 which attempted to require agencies to account better for the impact of proposed regulations on small businesses, other small entities, and to tailor final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities like the Food and Drug Administration.

Yes, small business can be a single franchise of a McDonald's or Burger King or Starbucks, many of them doing quite well. It could be a number of them under one businessowner. But, in fact, they do deal with the public.

This bill continues to expand the reach and scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and would only add to already unnecessary and lengthy regulatory delays, increased meddling by regulated industries, and encourage gratuitous court challenges.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act adds a host of new analytical requirements for agency policy actions, including rulemakings and guidance documents, that might affect a large number of small businesses, even if that is indirect.

Because the bill defines indirect effects broadly, it would mandate costly and wasteful new analyses that could be applied to virtually any action and agency attempt to make a better life

for Americans, no matter how tenuous the connection to business interests.

Again, can we imagine not being able to regulate or interfere with some small business that says you do not have to wash your hands in a restaurant? It is shocking to me.

Mr. Chairman, when I wrote this amendment, I had in mind one of the new issues that we have been facing, and that is the story of CRE, which is a disease that is being found on endoscopes, that has been found in a particular hospital in the far West.

This disease, this rare bacteria, was likely spread through specialized endoscopes that have been cleaned according to manufacturer's directions but still had some form of deadly germs. Are we suggesting that it is not an emergency to regulate or to keep or to be able to suggest that there needs to be a better cleaning process?

This is just the latest example of a life-threatening disease which is calling out for action from the government, and the CDC and the FDA should not have their hands tied.

In fact, the Houston Chronicle reported last week that these problems of dirty endoscopes have been tied to superbug infections in cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh in recent years. Although the bacteria weren't exactly the same, the situation raises new questions about the design, this infection, and regulation of the devices.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that our economy is doing fine, not for every single American, but it has a marked improvement. Jobs are increasing, and unemployment is under 5 percent.

I would only say that this legislation needs an addition from this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will accept the Jackson Lee amendment. It is a commonsense amendment that speaks to the health and care of the American public.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain my amendment. My amendment makes an exception for rules from the Food and Drug Administration, commonly known as the FDA.

This bill, H.R. 527, seek to reform the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which attempted to require agencies to account better for the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small entities and to tailor final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities like the Food and Drug Administration.

In reality, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act expands the reach and scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and would only add to already unnecessary and lengthy regulatory delays, increase meddling by regulated industries, and encourage gratuitous court challenges.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act adds a host of new analytical requirements for agency policy actions--including rulemakings and guidance documents--that might affect a large number of small businesses, even if that effect is ``indirect.''

And because the bill defines ``indirect effects'' broadly, it would mandate costly and wasteful new analyses that could be applied to virtually any action an agency attempts to undertake, no matter how tenuous the connection to small business interests.

And according to the American Sustainable Business Council, this bill would open the door for regulated industries to manipulate the regulatory process in their favor.

This undue influence would paralyze the regulatory process, creating uncertainty in the marketplace and stifling competition and innovation from small- and medium-sized entities.

When I wrote this amendment I had in mind the rare bacteria like that known as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, commonly known as CRE. This rare bacteria is being transmitted to patients even though the tools had been cleaned according to manufacturers' directions but still harbored the potentially deadly germs.

This is just the latest example of a life-threatening disease which is calling out for action from the government--and the CDC and the FDA should not have their hands tied.

The Houston Chronicle reported in a story last week:

The Seattle outbreak appears to be among the worst so far

in the U.S., where problems with dirty endoscopes have been

tied to superbug infections in Chicago and Pittsburgh in

recent years. Although the bacteria weren't exactly the same,

the situation raises new questions about the design,

disinfection and REGULATION of the devices, critics charge.

The bill reforms the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which attempted to require agencies to account better for the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small entities and to tailor final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities like the Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. Chair, the economy is doing fine now, not for every single American but it has seen a marked improvement from 2008. A bill like H.R. 527 only serves to gum-up the wheels of government and business collaboration by creating new and confusing rules.

When added to the existing gauntlet of procedural and analytical requirements that agencies must already navigate in order implement laws, SBRFIA's new requirements would serve only to further ``ossify'' rulemaking and make it nearly impossible for agencies to fulfill their congressionally mandated mission of protecting the public and responding to emerging health and environmental dangers.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act also ties the hands of agencies like the FDA by forcing them to delay actions until new analyses are completed. Under current law, an agency can continue to promulgate a regulation before it has finished the regulatory flexibility analysis, if the agency head believes its mission or the law calls for more immediate action.

The SBRFIA would eliminate these commonsense procedures. Imagine if emergency regulations to protect miners had to be delayed until the agency could finish this onerous and highly speculative analysis-lives could be lost and people could be needlessly injured. Or the FDA needed to issue a rule impacting the safety of dairy products. Lives are at stake.

Let me be quick to add that I specifically I oppose H.R. 527 because: (1) it is based on a faulty study; (2) taken as a whole, it will severely undermine Federal agency rulemaking, thereby threatening public health and safety; (3) it fails to address shortcomings in current law; (4) it offers no real assistance to small businesses in complying with regulations; and (5) it imposes additional duties on agencies while failing to provide any additional resources to agencies.

I urge an aye vote for the Jackson Lee amendment exempting FDA rules and add common sense to this legislation.

[From the Houston Chronicle, Jan. 22, 2015]

Seattle (AP).--A multidrug-resistant superbug has sickened

dozens of people at a Seattle hospital, spread from patient-

to-patient through contaminated equipment.

The Seattle Times reports (http://is.gd/m4JVhK )

investigators found the rare bacteria known as CRE--

carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae--was likely spread

through specialized endoscopes that had been cleaned

according to manufacturers' directions but still had some of

the deadly germs.

Virginia Mason Medical Center officials say they've changed

their cleaning protocol for the devices, even though federal

officials found no problem with their infection-control

practices.

Doctors say 11 of the at least 35 patients infected at the

hospital died, but it's not clear what role, if any, the

infection played in their deaths.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.