Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2018

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 50.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA, to prevent the imposition of burdensome and costly Federal unfunded mandates. Over the course of this Congress, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has developed a record that clearly shows UMRA has fallen short of its original goals.

Last year, the committee sought input on UMRA and received several hundred responses from Governors, State legislators, and county officials regarding the impact of Federal laws and regulations.

Too often, State and local governments are confronted with the rotten choice of raising taxes on their residents or cutting services residents depend on in order to comply with Federal mandates. Unfunded federal mandates strain State and local budgets, and subvert the principles of American federalism.

Federal agencies treat States as servants to their regulatory whims, rather than as partners to consult before imposing new, burdensome mandates.

In an April 2017 hearing, a Kentucky county executive testified that Federal agencies treat their responsibilities under UMRA as an exercise to ``check a box,'' rather than an opportunity to engage in a meaningful intergovernmental partnership.

H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, is designed to solve these problems. It will improve the quality of regulatory and legislative analysis and close the current loophole which allows an agency to bypass UMRA analysis by not issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking.

According to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, 35 percent of major rules are issued without a notice of proposed rulemaking. That means more than one-third of the regulations with the greatest impact on the economy are excluded from UMRA's cost-benefit and other analyses.

H.R. 50 also expands the definition of direct costs to ensure economic analysis considers foregone profits, costs passed on to consumers, and behavioral changes.

Requiring Federal regulatory agencies and the Congressional Budget Office to include all anticipated costs in cost estimates will help ensure that analyses are complete and provide an accurate description of the full effects of regulations and legislation.

H.R. 50 enhances transparency, accountability, and communication between the Federal Government and State, local, Tribal, or private sector partners. It requires Federal agencies to engage in a more thorough regulatory process by codifying key provisions of President Clinton's Executive Order 12866. These principles were reaffirmed by President Obama in Executive Order 13563 and are consistent with President Trump's executive orders on regulatory reform.

Under UMRA, agencies are required to consult with State, local, and Tribal governments when developing significant regulatory mandates. H.R. 50 extends this requirement to the private sector, which is similarly burdened by unfunded Federal regulatory mandates.

The bill also requires independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission to comply with UMRA.

Finally, H.R. 50 extends judicial review to help ensure agencies carefully consider the least costly and least burdensome regulatory alternative, giving courts the authority to stay regulations for noncompliance with UMRA. These changes are critical to achieving what Congress set out to do when UMRA was passed in 1995.

Requiring greater transparency and improving analysis prior to imposing Federal mandates is not a partisan goal. State and local governments headed by Republicans and Democrats

alike are affected by unfunded Federal mandates.

Businesses throughout the country have invested time and resources to comply with Federal mandates. With such a sweeping impact, any decision to impose a Federal mandate should, at a minimum, be transparent and based on the most comprehensive and accurate information available.

It is for this reason that our bill is supported by a vast coalition of nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations made up of United States State and local government officials.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from these coalitions, which includes the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the International City/County Management Association, the National Association of Counties, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 50 ensures the commonsense goals Congress intended when enacting UMRA in 1995 are in fact realized and improved upon. I thank the bipartisan group of Members who cosponsored and support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 50, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2018.

Hon. Steve Womack,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 15, 2018, the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported H.R. 50, the

Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017,

with an amendment, by recorded vote. The bill was referred

primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform, with additional referrals to the Committees on

Budget, Rules, and the Judiciary.

I ask you allow the Committee on the Budget to be

discharged from further consideration of the bill to expedite

floor consideration. 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 Budget 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,

Trey Gowdy.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have often heard that the most dangerous words or the most dangerous phrase in the English language is, ``We are from the Federal Government, and we are here to help.'' I agree with that.

Everywhere I go in my district, I hear from people, It isn't the laws that we pass, it's the regulations that implement those laws that are the biggest problems.

Unfortunately, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that government bureaucrats are the smartest people in the world. In fact, they are smarter than the majority of the American people who make this country great.

We absolutely do not want to do away with all rules and regulations. We want safe food. We want safe drinking water. We want all those things that help make this country great, but we want to bring some common sense and some transparency to the regulatory process. That is what H.R. 50 does.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that independent agencies need oversight as much as any other agencies. They already submit regulatory products to the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, including information collection requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Administrative Conference of the United States has recommended greater oversight of independent agencies for decades. The American Bar Association did the same in 1990 and reaffirmed the need in 2016 saying: ``We strongly urge you to bring the independent regulatory commissions within the requirements for cost-benefit analysis and retrospective review of rules currently reflected in Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563.''

I want to point out that both of these executive orders were promulgated by Democrat Presidents.

In 2011, Sally Katzen, OIRA Administrator under the Clinton administration, urged expanded oversight of independent agencies. She wrote: ``Our concern is that independent agencies are not typically engaged in the analysis that has come to be expected as a form of governmental best practices for regulatory agencies.''

This bill simply requires independent agencies to undertake the same cost-benefit analysis and reporting requirements as other regulatory agencies. There is no threat to their independence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and allow the gentleman from Virginia to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have heard time and again of the burdens the Federal Government imposes on State, local, and Tribal governments. We have also heard from businesses throughout the country, both large and small, that have to forego investments in employees and infrastructure in order to comply with these mandates.

Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 to require the Federal Government to think twice before imposing unfunded mandates. And let me say, that bill passed, I believe, with unanimous support from both the House and the Senate. If not unanimous, it was overwhelming, over 400 votes in the House and, I believe, 98 votes in the Senate.

Of course, in the 23 years since passage, the bureaucrats in the Federal

Government have found ways around many of those requirements. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the GAO has reported that 35 percent, more than one-third of major rules, are issued without a notice of proposed rulemaking so that the public has no idea what is coming out in the rulemaking in advance. It is time to make sure UMRA works as Congress intended.

Again, I am fascinated sometimes by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who don't want to take responsibility for our actions and want to give over the running of the entire government to the executive branch. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I am not sure why some run for office if they don't want to take on their responsibilities.

Legislative and regulatory decisions should be made in consideration of all of the available information, not just part of it. The government should consider every option before imposing unnecessary burdens on the States, localities, and even private enterprise.

H.R. 50 closes UMRA's loopholes and enhances transparency, accountability, and communication between the Federal Government and State, local, Tribal, and private sector partners.

We do not do away with all rulemaking. We do not want to make food, water, housing, all those things that are regulated for the good of the American people, we don't want to do away with those. We simply want to have more transparency and understand the cost of the regulations.

H.R. 50 codifies bipartisan regulatory principles, enhances required analysis, adds independent agencies to the cost-benefit analysis requirements, extends judicial review to hold agencies accountable, and improves stakeholder consultation.

I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a key provision of H.R. 50, requiring independent agencies to comply with UMRA.

The purpose of H.R. 50 is to require comprehensive analysis before agencies impose unfunded mandates on State, local, or Tribal governments and the private sector.

Regulations must be fully analyzed and imposed only after impacted parties have been consulted. That should be the case whether the regulations come from a Cabinet department or an independent agency.

From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2016, independent agencies issued 275 major rules. Those rules imposed significant costs on our economy and often included mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector, just the same as rules that came from non-independent agencies.

Because independent agencies are excluded from UMRA, excluded from regulatory process requirements in Executive Order No. 12866, and excluded from review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, few independent agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses.

In FY 2016, independent agencies issued 18 major regulations, but only a third of those rules included monetized cost analysis and not one rule included any analysis of monetized benefits.

The cost-benefit analyses required by UMRA are essential for a transparent and accountable regulatory system, and eliminating section 5 would be inconsistent with the intent of H.R. 50. This bill seeks to close loopholes, not preserve them.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the real goal of this bill is to require transparency on the part of independent agencies and not to have a nefarious impact on those independent agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment.

This amendment requires a record of any consultation with a non- Federal party and requires agencies to post any comments submitted by a non-Federal party to their website within 5 days.

Transparency is a bipartisan priority and is a key feature of many regulatory process requirements.

For instance, the Administrative Procedures Act generally requires Federal agencies to publish their proposed rules in the Federal Register for all to see and to give the public an opportunity to comment. Rulemaking dockets and public comments are increasingly available for public inspection online.

Groups, such as the Administrative Conference of the United States, have recommended that records of consultations and ex parte communications be disclosed and made a part of the rulemaking docket.

H.R. 50 seeks to introduce greater transparency in the regulatory process, and this amendment is consistent with that split.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland for offering the amendment and for working with me to expand its application and increase transparency.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would repeal H.R. 50 if GDP remains below 5 percent over the first four quarters after enactment.

H.R. 50 is not intended to raise the GDP. It is intended to ensure the Federal Government does not impose costs on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector without consulting those entities that are impacted by the regulation. The GDP does not reflect how a given regulatory mandate affects a particular government or private sector industry.

However, this amendment would tie the GDP to the future of the entire bill. H.R. 50 gives the private sector an opportunity to give Federal agencies information about how to craft reasonable and effective regulation. After all, State, local, and Tribal governments and private sector entities are often in the best position to anticipate how a proposed regulation will affect their operations.

H.R. 50 will help to ensure regulations that impose unfunded mandates are adequately analyzed in order to make these mandates the most effective and least burdensome they can be.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we, on our side of the aisle, join our colleague in stating our absolute abhorrence to domestic violence and sexual assault in this country. None of us want to see any incidents of sexual assault, domestic violence, or assault on children, obviously.

What we are concerned about, and what this bill can help do, is to help our local police and law enforcement have better opportunities to help to fight these terrible, terrible situations. I thank our colleague for her leadership in working with us on this side of the aisle and with all of us who have had a bipartisan effort on sex trafficking and sexual assault.

But, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit. We have been analyzing, debating, and voting on this bill to update the unfunded mandates reform for years. When UMRA was enacted 23 years ago, it was an important step to analyze the burdens of Federal legislation and regulations on State and local governments. But now it needs an update.

H.R. 50 would close loopholes in UMRA, enhance transparency and accountability, and increase communication with State and local governments.

Mr. Speaker, if the State and local governments didn't have to spend so much money on unnecessary things, perhaps they would be able to do more on the issues my colleague brought up.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill with a bipartisan amendment from the committee and a bipartisan amendment from the floor. Let's not let a bipartisan motion stop a fix to decades-old problems in all our districts, unfunded mandates.

H.R. 50 is good for State and local governments, the Federal Government, businesses, and, most importantly, it is good for the public. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. I support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.

We have seen this bill before. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now.

Proponents of this bill, as we have just heard, may argue that regulations are burdensome and costly--and sometimes they are--but, in fact, the benefits of agency regulations far outweigh the costs.

The most recent draft report of the Trump administration's own Office of Management and Budget on the benefits and costs of regulations found that the estimated annual benefits of rules between 2006 and 2016, which covers nearly all of the regulations during the previous administration, were between $219 billion and $695 billion. Those are the benefits, the value of benefits.

By contrast, it said that the cost of those same rules were estimated at between somewhere around $59 billion and $88 billion. The benefits far outweigh the cost to the American public.

This bill will impose numerous requirements that will slow down the regulatory process and give regulated industry an unfair advantage over public health organizations, doctors, scientists, and ordinary Americans when new rules are made.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was important in helping to strike a balance between the need for Federal regulations and the burden those regulations placed on State and local governments. I know that. I was the head

of a very large local government. Congress should endeavor to strike, however, a similar balance with mandates on the private sector, without putting our fingers on the scale for the very industries that need regulations, as this bill does.

Under this bill, agencies would be required to consult with impacted entities in the private sector on a proposed rule before the rule is even made available to the public, giving a very unfair advantage to the industries to be regulated. Agencies should consult with industry on proposed rules, of course. Regulated corporations, however, should never been given an explicit and unfair preference over other stakeholders, particularly the American families and consumers these rules are designed to protect.

Drug manufacturers, for example, should not get to influence an opioid safety regulation before public health experts. The energy industry should not get to weigh in on a regulation before those citizens whose air and water quality would be affected are heard from.

This bill would also significantly expand in almost a sweeping way judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

UMRA currently prohibits a court from delaying or invalidating a rule based on an agency's compliance with UMRA. This bill would eliminate that restriction.

This bill would also allow judges to second-guess agency experts by evaluating the adequacy of agency analyses, including cost-benefit estimates, giving broad new power to the judiciary to get into the rulemaking process and, in some cases, perhaps, to substitute themselves for regulatory agencies. This is something I don't believe we want to see.

The bill would also require an agency to conduct a retrospective cost-benefit analysis of any existing rule if requested by the chairman or ranking member of the committee. This provision would require agencies to conduct analyses on potentially thousands of rules, diverting unnecessary time and attention away from fulfilling their missions. That is designed, basically, to preclude new rulemaking from happening at all.

H.R. 50 would also repeal the exemption that is currently in UMRA for independent agencies. As a result, the independence of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission could be compromised because the Office of Management and Budget would now have a role in shaping rules those agencies issue.

The bottom line is that regulation can make our air cleaner to breathe, our water safer to drink--by the way, we are reminded of that right now here in Washington, D.C., where we have a water boil advisory--the products we use safer, and provide protections that are critical for a healthy economy. H.R. 50 would impose new roadblocks that would make it harder to provide those protections for the public we serve.

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

Mr. Chair, before I recognize Mr. Cummings, the distinguished ranking member of our committee, I do want to say, it is the same old thing: Oh, this is just commonsense. Of course we favor sensible regulation that protects our air and water.

Really. The same crowd that says that is witnessing the dismantlement of regulations and, frankly, the defenestration of the regulatory agencies charged with that mission, like the EPA. The late, lamented Administrator of the EPA has set about on a wrecking ball mission at EPA, and I don't hear my Republican friends speaking up, decrying that, and defending those regulations to protect the public.

This is a pig in a poke. My colleagues should not support it.

Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

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

My friend from Texas is right. This will certainly provide a lot more clarity for private enterprise. I am not sure it is the kind of clarity we want, because they are going to get their nose into the business of rulemaking to serve their interests.

There are rules that could not have been enacted if H.R. 50 had been law. For example, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 crew members and set off the worst oil spill in American history, the Department of the Interior finalized a rule in 2016 to tighten controls in blowout preventers and calling for rig operators to have third parties certify that the safety devices worked under extreme conditions. That rule would have been precluded because of the provisions of this bill.

The sanitary transportation of human and animal food, this rule establishes requirements for parties engaged in the transportation of food, including food for animals, to use sanitary transportation practices. That would have been precluded.

The corporate average fuel economy standards to regulate miles-per- gallon number of light-duty vehicles such as sedans, minivans, and any vehicle that weighs less than 10,000 pounds would have been precluded.

The long-term care facilities arbitration agreements ban nursing homes and assisted living facilities from forcing patients and their families into private arbitration to resolve disputes. We protected the interests of consumers and their families at a time of need. That rule would have been precluded, too.

So that may be the reason why the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, 150 organizations, have come together to oppose this bill. It is not in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It gives me great pride to recognize my dear friend.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It gives me great pleasure to recognize my distinguished colleague.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from North Carolina. I appreciate her fervor, and I know she is sincere in her convictions with respect to this legislation and to the underlying issues.

As someone who came from local government, coming here to Congress, running one of the biggest local governments in the United States, I certainly am sympathetic to the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and I supported many of those provisions.

This goes too far. This isn't just an UMRA improvement. This is gutting, wholesale, the regulatory process that provides enormous benefits, and we know that from the OMB itself in terms of the benefits versus the cost of rulemaking to protect the public.

Where we can make improvements, great, but gutting it, giving the regulated industries an inside opportunity to shape or block those regulations before the public ever even sees them, expanding, in a great way, the role of the judiciary to second-guess and subvert the role of rulemaking agencies in the executive branch, I think, does raise constitutional issues, as Mr. Cummings said, that sooner or later will have to be addressed.

So I think this is a very flawed piece of legislation, despite the good intentions of my friend from North Carolina. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on something that is simple, neat, but wrong, as H.L. Mencken once said.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for her thoughtful amendment.

This amendment would significantly improve an already bad bill by exempting the independent agencies, who should not be brought under the penumbra of this bill at all. It will absolutely cut their independence and make them subject to the rulemaking and the supervision of the OMB in a way that Congress never intended. That is why they are independent agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this thoughtful amendment, and I thank my good friend from New Jersey for her leadership on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is a thoughtful addition. Certainly, more transparency is a good thing.

But, as Mr. Raskin suggests, it doesn't change the underlying fact that this is a flawed bill. It doesn't change the fact that it guts independent agencies. It doesn't change the fact that it broadly expands the role of the judiciary in an executive branch rulemaking process. It doesn't change the fact that it basically gives unilateral authority to the chairman and ranking member here in Congress to block rules, period. And it doesn't change the fact that it gives the private sector an unprecedented role in rulemaking a priority in a way that is absolutely against consumer interests.

I know my friend from Maryland understands that, so I thank him for his thoughtful amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, clear amendment to the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This amendment seeks to establish a performance-based sunset mechanism stipulating that, in the event that the annual rate of real GDP growth remains below 5 percent over the first four quarters occurring after the date of enactment, then the statutory changes made by H.R. 50 are repealed because the bill will have proved to have been ineffective.

If the promise of deregulation and gutting the protection of the American people is greater economic growth, then let's test that theory.

This amendment sets up a real-world measurement and a sunset mechanism that supporters and opponents can support. It features the flexibility to ensure an appropriate response to the impact of H.R. 50 on America's economic

growth over the year following enactment.

If the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, by lessening the independence of independent regulatory agencies and by strengthening the influence of the private sector to be regulated in the Federal rulemaking process, does, in fact, spur economic growth, we should hold the policy accountable. During the Obama administration--a time when President Obama's critics believed that overregulation was inhibiting the economy from growing and stunting recovery after the Great Recession, quarterly growth contradicted them. Quarterly growth of real GDP was at least 5 percent once and over 4 percent 11 times.

In fact, in 2014, when Congress last considered, but did not enact, this bill and the supposed hobnail boot of government was on the neck of our economy, GDP actually grew at an annual rate of 4.6 percent and 5.2 percent in the second and third quarters, respectively, of that year.

The provisions of H.R. 50 would make it harder for Federal agencies to safeguard air and water quality, the safety of food and consumer products, and the health and welfare of all Americans, all in the name of spurring economic growth. Therefore, it follows, if it fails to spur that promised economic growth and achieve an average annual growth of 5 percent over the year following the enactment of the law, then the statutory changes made by this bill should be repealed because they failed. Anything less would be a bad deal for the American public.

Finally, I would note that, according to the preliminary estimate of the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment would not increase direct spending or reduce revenues, and I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 985 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 985, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, and also H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, equally divided by the chair and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, respectively. It also provides for a motion to recommit for each bill.

Last night, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from the sponsor of H.R. 3281, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, about his bill and its importance for improving the management of water and water-related facilities. We also heard from my friend and a former Rules Committee member, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, on H.R. 50, which she introduced.

Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are, at their core, about promoting effective government and enhancing the cooperation and collaboration between the government and non-Federal entities.

The Federal Government has its hands in a lot of things. That is not always a bad thing, but we see far too many instances where Federal involvement does more harm than good. That is why Republicans in this Chamber are committed to reining in the Federal Government where it needs to be reined in, to increasing its efficiency and transparency, and to giving the American people a louder voice in the decisions that impact them.

H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act, empowers water users and seeks to reduce the administrative paperwork and liability Federal taxpayers bear by streamlining the process through which some Bureau of Reclamation projects are transferred to non-Federal entities.

Today, the Bureau of Reclamation is the Nation's largest wholesale water supplier, providing one out of five Western farmers with irrigation water and delivering trillions of gallons to people annually.

Under the current law, the BOR is allowed to transfer day-to-day operational and maintenance responsibilities to project beneficiaries, but the Bureau cannot transfer title or ownership of any of these facilities unless

Congress specifically enacts legislation authorizing such a transfer.

This legislation recognizes that Federal bureaucracy is not doing any favors for water users or for aging infrastructure projects. That is why this bill focuses on empowering local water users and incentivizing non-Federal investment in water infrastructure. This bill helps reduce regulatory paperwork and the Federal backlog on water infrastructure repair, while increasing efficiencies for water users.

Where Congress can streamline Federal operations and increase local control to the benefit of taxpayers and end users, we should act. H.R. 3281 is a step toward accomplishing both of these goals on Bureau of Reclamation projects.

On the next bill, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. As I mentioned earlier, this bill continues the trend of empowering State and local governments and lightening the grip of the Federal Government.

In 1995, Congress acted through the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to prevent the imposition of burdensome and costly Federal unfunded mandates on State and local governments. That was a worthy goal 23 years ago and remains so today.

As a former appropriator at the State level in the State of Georgia, I understand, many times, what good-intentioned work from up here can do, actually, on impacts to State budgets and local budgets, and this is a worthy goal for us to take up.

It has become clear, however, unfunded mandates are slipping through the cracks or, perhaps more accurately, flooding through gaping holes in the system. In fact, according to an Office of Management and Budget report, unfunded mandates and Federal regulations cost States, cities, and the public between $44 billion and $62 billion annually. Even in a town used to throwing around big numbers, that is a big number.

Mr. Speaker, I know the communities in my home of northeast Georgia often struggle to make ends meet. Local governments are rarely flush with cash, and they have to make tough decisions about what priorities receive funding, and in what amounts, in order to best serve their communities. Unfunded mandates, particularly the unexpected ones, can significantly hamper those efforts.

In fact, in recognition of this problem and in pursuit of a solution, those who are most affected by the issue of unfunded mandates--State and local governments--overwhelmingly support this legislation.

The so-called Big 7 organizations representing the State and local governments and officials--the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the International City/County Management Association--sent a letter earlier this year urging enactment of H.R. 50.

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act represents the type of action Congress is supposed to take. It identifies a problem, it acknowledges the need for policy updates, and it incorporates stakeholder feedback in order to solve that problem.

The bill provided for by this rule closes loopholes in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and applies the requirements of that law to independent agencies. The bill provides for expanded input from State, local, and Tribal governments, as well as from the private sector, by requiring agencies to consult with the government and with the private sector when they are developing significant regulatory mandates.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of this update to the law cannot be overstated. I believe that the men and women eking out a living or building a business on the ground know what problems exist and how to remedy them better than the people who are currently residing in cubicles in Washington, D.C.

When bureaucrats are writing regulations that impact northeast Georgians, they need to consult with and glean insight from northeast Georgians. They also need to understand that what works for northeast Georgia might not work for southeast Georgia, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, Ohio, or anywhere else besides where they are.

If the Federal Government is going to implement regulations that impact private entities--which they do far too often, with far too little benefit, in my opinion--those entities need to have and deserve a voice in the process.

H.R. 50 helps give the private sector that agency. It also requires rules that aren't preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking to undergo a UMRA analysis if the effects on State, local, and private sectors total $100 million or more. The bill codifies longstanding regulatory principles regarding cost-benefit analysis and when to regulate, and supports more accurate economic analysis.

Mr. Speaker, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was designed to promote informed decisionmaking throughout the legislative and regulatory process, in consultation with the entities affected by those processes. Those goals are just as important, if not more important, today as when the UMRA was originally signed into law in 1995.

Congress needs to take responsibility to help reduce the burdens regulatory agencies have placed on State and local governments, as well as private entities. Without question, Congress must work to close these loopholes and reduce bureaucracy.

These are the simple concepts, Mr. Speaker: Unnecessary, burdensome Federal regulations should be identified and reconsidered, and the people and businesses impacted by regulations should have a voice in the regulatory process.

I believe government can operate more efficiently and effectively when we give local stakeholders a voice, when we seek to increase efficiency and remove unwieldy mandates, and when we work to reduce the Federal bureaucracy.

The bill provided for by this rule takes steps in doing just that. I believe that they are steps that we in the House should support to help American communities, citizens, and consumers.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will close by paraphrasing a comment that the Honorable Chairwoman Foxx made yesterday evening in the Rules Committee.

By the way, I want to bring it back: There is a lot of discussion that we are going to have, but, actually, the rule is about two bills that my friends didn't discuss at all. I hope they vote yes on that, so we can move legislation that has helped move the bureaucracy out of the way, so that things can actually, with common sense, get done. We don't choose to talk about that.

We have a lot of issues. I am in agreement on a lot of things that we need to do. We need to fix our immigration system. But today, let's remind ourselves on the floor what we are doing. It is a rule to deal with two specific bills dealing with regulatory issues.

Ms. Foxx said this yesterday in far more eloquent words than I am offering right now, that those opposed to the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act are those who support unbridled regulations.

I do not support unbridled regulations. I think there are some good regulations, and I think there are some regulations that are necessary. Far too often, we see the Federal Government flooding our community with regulations that do little to achieve their intended benefits, yet come with massive bills, and Washington expects the American people to foot the bill.

Maybe my friends across the aisle enjoy that. Maybe my friends across the aisle want that to continue to happen. Maybe my friends across the aisle who want to vote no on this want to continue to see this happen. We don't. We believe that there is a better way.

The bills provided for by this rule recognize the role of the Federal Government, but they take needed steps to magnify the voices of those closest to the issues.

I support this rule, and I support the underlying bills. I encourage all to do so and look at it honestly from the perspective of those who pay our bills, the people who pay the bills for this government, the ones who go to work every day, who pay their taxes, who want their government to do what the government is supposed to do and stay out of the areas where they are not supposed to be.

This is what this is about, Mr. Speaker, plain and simple, bringing it back to the truth of the rule that we are debating, and that is what I believe is important.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

This rule makes in order two bills and four amendments: H.R. 50, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017; and H.R. 3281, Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act.

H.R. 50 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This is a bill that Congress already voted on in 2015 in nearly a party-line vote in the House before dying in the Senate.

I understand my colleagues think that this is a very important issue. As a former mayor and council member, I know how difficult Federal regulations can be to implement. This legislation, however, does nothing except grind progress to a standstill, blocking improvements to our Nation's health, safety, and environmental protections.

Perhaps that is why this rule also makes in order H.R. 3281, which assaults our Nation's environmental and health standards in a different way. This legislation, which I opposed in the Natural Resources Committee, would authorize a de facto privatization of Federal infrastructure across the Western U.S., all while stiffing our taxpayers.

The bill does not require that taxpayers be compensated for the loss of publicly owned land and mineral interests. Imagine, once again, this Congress is putting the interests of private business ahead of our hardworking taxpayers.

This legislation is a proposal from President Trump's infrastructure plan, which largely seeks to enrich developers and private businesses at the expense of our hardworking taxpayers and the general public as a whole.

I could understand spending time on these bills if we had finished the pressing work before us, but with thousands--and I mean thousands-- of children still separated from their parents due to the cruel actions of this administration, is this really what we are spending time on? Where are the moral priorities and family values of this Congress?

I have spoken with the Department of Homeland Security, and I have spoken with the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, and there has been one constant answer from both of them: They have absolutely no idea what they are doing, no idea where the parents of these children are, no idea how many children have been put into foster care, no idea when these families will be reunited, and no idea what comes next.

Congress has a responsibility to act, not next week, not next month, not next year, but today. Once we leave for August recess, let me remind you, it will be 39 days before we come back. That means 39 more days that we are going to allow children to be held in detention, in cages, in cold cells, without their parents.

The Trump administration has already missed the first deadline to reunite families. What assurances do we have that they won't miss the second deadline, or the third one, or possibly the fourth one? How many more deadlines does this Congress, this administration, need before we realize that we are complicit--complicit--in separating children from their parents who care about them?

And while we have them in our custody, we are complicit in not properly taking care of them. ``Full of dirt and lice,'' that is how an immigrant mother described her 14-month-old baby son who had been returned to her after 85 days of separation.

We must act because this administration chooses not to. Failure to do so will mean more families are broken forever, more families like Yasmin's.

On May 22, Yasmin and her two teenage daughters entered the United States and were immediately apprehended and then separated. The mother was transferred to the McAllen holding center--also known as the dog pound, as they call it--with a group of other separated mothers.

After 7 days, the mothers were told that they would be deported without their children. Many of the mothers fainted when they heard this news. One mother had a seizure in a cell. After appearing in court, Yasmin was handcuffed, shackled, and given no information on the status of her children. Family values.

After being transferred to another detention center, Yasmin was informed that her daughters had been reunited with their father. But Yasmin still remains in a detention center, where she has gone more than a month separated from her children. She has received absolutely no information about when she will see her children again and must simply wait and pray. Family values.

These people are fleeing for their lives to the promise and safety of the United States, and we aren't even considering their asylum cases.

Let me tell you another story, Mr. Speaker. A woman from El Salvador decided to flee to the U.S. with her two young boys, ages 4 and 10, after receiving grave threats from MS-13 gang members. Prior to fleeing to the U.S., she had sought protection from Salvadoran authorities through the legal process but had not received any protection.

In March of this year, she presented herself to the border officials, after making a conscious decision not to enter the U.S. at an official port of entry. She had learned that CBP officials are turning away asylum seekers in direct--direct--violation of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The mother and her two boys were apprehended and taken to a Border Patrol processing station. The mother was sent to an adult detention center in Laredo, and the boys were sent to a shelter for unaccompanied children under the Office of Refugee Resettlement within Health and Human Services.

At one point, the brothers were separated from one another and placed into two separate foster homes, but were eventually reunited and released to family on the East Coast.

Under current law and procedure--something this Congress could change today--the children have absolutely no right to an appointed lawyer. Without their mother to speak on their behalf, the 4-year-old and the 10-year-old boys must make a case for asylum on their own in separate court cases.

This is what we could be doing today: One, fixing the broken laws that have toddlers, toddlers who are barely out of diapers, representing themselves in court and fixing the root causes of these issues with the Central American Family Protection and Reunification Act, legislation I have offered with Ranking Member Engel.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can use our limited time here to act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.J. Res. 31, sponsored by Representatives Deutch and McGovern and Raskin, which would reserve Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United by enshrining in the Constitution of the United States a democracy for all amendments, establishing the right of the American people to enact State and Federal laws that regulate spending in public elections.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) to discuss this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, who has been a leader

on this issue of money and politics for years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) to speak on the continuing horror stories about what has happened at our Nation's border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

One final story to remind all of us what is at stake here.

Earlier this year, a Honduran father was separated from his wife and child just days after President Trump's zero-tolerance policies went into effect. Marco Antonio Munoz crossed the Rio Grande with his wife and 3-year-old son on May 12 near the tiny town of Granjeno, Texas. Soon after Marco and his family were taken into custody, they arrived at a processing station in nearby McAllen and said they wanted to apply for asylum.

Border Patrol agents told the family that they would be separated. That is when Border Patrol officials literally ripped Marco's child from his arms. At no point did Marco attempt to attack or assault the Border Patrol staff, but due to his anguish, he was placed into a padded isolation cell.

Marco began to pray, pray for his family and pray for their safety. Hours passed, and the next morning, after receiving no information about where his family was or when he would see them next, Marco took his life.

Family values.

This is the law and order President Trump has no respect for either. He is disrespecting the rule of law and violating court orders by detaining children, babies, and he is creating

hysteria among families and confusion among Border Patrol and HHS officials.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule because we can do better than this. We have family values that we must stand for, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the vice ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for yielding time and for doing such a phenomenal job on our committee.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This legislation would obstruct the regulatory process with new requirements that would make it more difficult to promulgate regulations that protect the health and safety of Americans.

This bill also would give regulated companies the ability to weigh in on rules before other stakeholders. That is simply not right.

Under this bill, gun manufacturers could influence a gun safety rule before child safety experts.

Under this bill, banks could shape rules related to obtaining lines of credit before consumer advocates.

Under this bill, a coal company could weigh in on a clean air rule before doctors, scientists, and other public health experts.

This is a gross distortion of how this process should work, and it would put the interests of polluters and other corporate offenders ahead of the American people. I simply say that we are better than that.

This bill also must be viewed in the context of the broader assault on regulations underway by President Trump and his allies in Congress. Using the Congressional Review Act, Republicans in Congress have repealed 16 health, safety, environmental, and consumer protection rules.

They repealed a rule that prevented individuals with severe mental illnesses from gaining access to guns. Give me a break.

They repealed the stream protection rule, which required monitoring of streams and groundwater for toxic contaminants dumped by coal mining companies. Yes, they did that, too.

They repealed the fair pay and safe workplaces rule, which required that American tax dollars be spent only on companies that comply with the workplace health, safety, and civil rights laws by which all private businesses must abide.

The bill before us today is yet another attack on regulations, one that Republicans have passed many times before but have never been able to enact.

This bill would amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which was enacted as 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.

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. This bill would remove that exemption.

That means independent regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission 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 a retrospective review, including an additional cost-benefit analysis of any existing rule, if requested by the chairman or ranking member of a committee. The Congressional Research Service found that there is a tenable argument that section 12 is unconstitutional.

CRS said: ``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.''

These flaws are reason enough to oppose this bill, but the most important reason is that we rely on agency rulemaking to protect our children, protect our workers, and protect our economy.

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 good government, labor, scientific, faith, health, and community organizations, sent a letter to Congress strongly opposing this bill. Here is just a portion of 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 environmental disasters demonstrate the need for a regulatory system that protects the public, not corporate interests.''

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.