Route 66 Centennial Commission Act

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, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 66) to establish the Route 66 Centennial Commission, to direct the Secretary of Transportation to prepare a plan on the preservation needs of Route 66, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 66, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 66, the Route 66 Centennial Commission Act.

I thank my colleague, Representative Grace Napolitano, for sponsoring this legislation with me, and I also thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for helping shepherd this bill to the floor, along with Highways and Transit Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Graves.

I am proud to have Route 66 run through the middle of my district, and I believe it is important that we celebrate the history of Route 66.

In 1926, Route 66 became our Nation's first all-paved highway under the U.S. highway system, connecting Chicago, Illinois, to Santa Monica, California. Early on, the road was used by hundreds of thousands of Americans seeking to escape the Dust Bowl and provided critical employment opportunities for road crews paving the road during the Great Depression.

During World War II, the highway transported troops, equipment, and supplies to military bases across our country and was used after the war by thousands of troops returning home to their families.

By the 1950s, Route 66 began to see a rise in tourism and became the true symbol of American freedom and independence that we all know today.

In April of last year, I went on an extended tour of Illinois' stretch of the highway with my colleague Representative Darin LaHood and also many State and local leaders. I had the opportunity to see the economic impact that the Mother Road brings to Illinois. It supports many jobs and key economic activity in small towns, and it helps to generate important revenue to support those small rural communities.

For example, travelers along Route 66 in Illinois can see a giant pink elephant statue and other larger-than-life sculptures at the Pink Elephant Antique Mall in Livingston, Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, my family and I were coming back to my hometown of Taylorville yesterday, and we stopped and had a great lunch at the Twistee Treat, which is attached to the Pink Elephant Antique Mall. So

if you ever want to go there, they have great burgers. I happened to have a pork tenderloin sandwich that I probably shouldn't have eaten, but it was really, really good, and topped it off, of course, with Twistee Treat's famous ice cream.

You can also, if you are traveling Route 66, stop and see a movie at the Wildey Theater in Edwardsville, Illinois. That originally opened in 1909. Or stop for an all-day breakfast at Jungle Jim's Cafe, a quintessential roadside diner in Springfield, Illinois.

Those are just a few of the thousands of local businesses along Route 66 whose livelihoods depend upon the historic highway.

You don't even have to be in a car to ride along Route 66. The Illinois Route 66 Trail is a system of off-road paths for bikes, hikers, or anyone else looking to see the Mother Road in a different way.

The centennial of this great highway will be an international celebration, and the State of Illinois will be ready to welcome travelers from around the world who want to experience the history and magic of this scenic byway.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, will create a 19-member commission to recommend activities to honor the 100th anniversary of the Mother Road in the year 2026.

It also directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop a plan to ensure the first all-paved U.S. highway connecting the Midwest to my colleague's, Mrs. Napolitano's, district in California will be preserved for many years to come. In doing this, the Secretary of Transportation will work with the Governors of the eight States that this historic highway passes through to develop a comprehensive preservation plan.

H.R. 66 is endorsed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation; the Route 66 Road Ahead Partnership; the National Historic Route 66 Federation; Auto Club Enterprises, also known as AAA; and the Route 66 Alliance.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record their letters of support of the bill.

National Trust for

Historic Preservation,

July 16, 2018.

Dear Members of the House of Representatives: We appreciate

this opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic

Preservation's perspective on H.R. 66, the Route 66

Centennial Commission Act, which is scheduled for House floor

consideration today. The National Trust enthusiastically

endorses this legislation and looks forward to its enactment

this year.

interests of the national trust for historic preservation

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a

privately-funded charitable, educational, and nonprofit

organization chartered by Congress in 1949 to ``facilitate

public participation in historic preservation'' and to

further the purposes of federal historic preservation laws.

The intent of Congress was for the National Trust ``to

mobilize and coordinate public interest, participation, and

resources in the preservation and interpretation of sites and

buildings.'' With headquarters in Washington, D.C., nine

field offices, 27 historic sites, more than one million

members and supporters, and a national network of partners in

states, territories, and the District of Columbia, the

National Trust works to save America's historic places and

advocates for historic preservation as a fundamental value in

programs and policies at all levels of government.

h.r. 66, route 66 centennial commission act

We appreciate Representative Rodney Davis' leadership on

this legislation to create a Route 66 Centennial Commission

that recognizes and honors Route 66 on its centennial

anniversary. Historic Route 66 stretches approximately 2,400

miles from Chicago, IL to Los Angeles, CA, passing through

eight states and more than 300 communities. This vital

transportation corridor between the Midwest and southern

California has endured as a symbol of freedom and mobility

while epitomizing a new optimism that pervaded the nation's

economic recovery following World War II.

Route 66 was found by the National Park Service (NPS) to be

nationally significant in its 1995 Route 66 Special Resource

Study, which determined that Route 66 met the eligibility

requirements for a National Historic Trail. Numerous

buildings along Route 66 are listed on the National Register

of Historic Places (NRHP), and a 2012 Multiple Property

Documentation Form (MPDF) establishing the road's national

significance was recently approved by the Keeper of the

National Register. Route 66 has been designated a National

Scenic Byway in four states, including one segment that has

been designated an All-American Road--the highest designation

offered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Route 66 is internationally recognized as representing

America's love of the automobile and open road. As a Dustbowl

migration route, a World War II strategic military route, and

a vacation travel route, it has been celebrated in music,

literature, television, movies, and popular lore. The

National Trust has been supportive of Route 66 preservation

efforts for many years, including it in our signature

National Treasures program, participating in symposiums,

providing strategic assistance, and including Route 66 on the

2018 list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.

When Congress passed the Route 66 Corridor Preservation

Program in 1999, a program administered by the National Park

Service (NPS), Route 66 was described as a symbol of the

American people's heritage of travel and their legacy of

seeking a better life. We applaud Representative Rodney Davis

and the over 40 cosponsors of H.R. 66 for their commitment to

recognizing the national significance of Route 66.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present the National

Trust's perspectives on this legislation, and we look forward

to working with Congress to ensure H.R. 66 is enacted into

law this year.

Sincerely,

Pam Bowman,

Director of Public Lands Policy.

Mr. Speaker, throughout its history, Route 66 has become more than just a way to get from point A to point B. It has evolved into a symbol of American independence and prosperity. I am proud to help continue the legacy of Route 66, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 66.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleague Mrs. Napolitano, and also my colleague Mr. LaHood, for going on the Route 66 tour and passing legislation through the Natural Resources Committee when he was a member of that committee to ensure that this Mother Road gets the recognition that it deserves when it turns 100 years old.

I will tell you, you talk about economic impacts, this road has a tremendous impact in rural America and central Illinois. When I pulled into the Pink Elephant Antique Mall yesterday, it was tough to find a parking spot on a Sunday in Livingston, Illinois, when that town has 850 people who reside there. This is a big deal.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from Virginia for yielding to me and for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 50, the misleadingly named Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which passed out of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a strictly partisan vote.

This dangerous bill is an attempt to weaken consumer protections, give private industry an unfair advantage, and erect unnecessary barriers to the regulatory process. Ultimately, this bill is designed to prioritize the interests of private businesses over the interests of the consumers these rules are designed to protect.

H.R. 50 also slows the regulatory process by using litigation today to delay the approval of rules. The existing Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 prohibits courts from using the law to stay, enjoin, invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule. H.R. 50 would fundamentally change that law by eliminating this prohibition, giving regulated businesses the ability to abuse a gratuitously expanded judicial review and tie up rules that would otherwise protect real people in courts for years.

While it has been very popular in this Congress to attack regulations as uniformly bad, the reality is that many of these rules are crucial to protecting our air and water, preventing dangerous financial practices, and ensuring the safety of food and drugs--to put it more simply, to protect Americans from corporations whose only motivation is to maximize their profit. Enacting this legislation would put these vital rules at risk.

H.R. 50 is a very harmful bill. I want to urge all of my colleagues to vote against it on the House floor today.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply strikes a section of H.R. 50 that subjects independent agencies to the reporting requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA.

The Office of Management and Budget, which is charged with implementing the President's priorities across the executive branch, is responsible for overseeing the implementation of H.R. 50.

This bill expands OMB's role by requiring them to guarantee that each agency complies with the act's requirements, which puts the independent agencies in jeopardy of political interference.

The independence of regulatory agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who are responsible for protecting public health and safety, would be severely compromised. The aptly named independent agencies are entitled to operate with more autonomy than Cabinet agencies and without undue influence from Presidential administrations.

This is particularly troubling considering this administration's track record on weakening States' rights by gutting Federal public protections and blocking States from adopting stronger State level standards and protections.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill will falsely claim that the provision in H.R. 50 will close a loophole that will make independent agencies accountable to the public.

But I want to make it clear that this provision will only give presidents greater control over independent agencies and will create needless uncertainty in the decision-making process of independent regulatory agencies.

It is also unclear how reducing the independence of these agencies addresses unfunded mandates. Instead, it is clear that the real goal is simply to undermine their independence. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove this harmful provision.

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