Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 50) to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3281) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the transfer to non-Federal ownership of appropriate reclamation projects or facilities, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today is an attempt by my Republican colleagues to approve one part of President Trump's so- called infrastructure plan.

H.R. 3281 would enact a proposal from the Trump infrastructure plan that approves the de facto privatization of some of the public's most important water infrastructure, without safeguards to protect the American taxpayer or our natural heritage.

Now, you may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Trump infrastructure plan that was transmitted to Congress in February focuses much of its attention on giving away the public's infrastructure to private interests.

For example, the Trump plan calls for privatizing Western electricity infrastructure, the Dulles International Airport, the Washington Aqueduct, the George Washington and Baltimore Washington Parkways, and much of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

This Trump yard sale of critical public infrastructure would raise consumer costs and would enrich private interests, all while providing no meaningful funding for much-needed public infrastructure development.

Now, when it comes to the management of our public infrastructure, it is clear that this administration and this Republican Congress would simply rather sell it off than fix it. So today, we have before us the proposal to dole out much of the public water infrastructure owned by the United States, with virtually no strings attached.

Mr. Speaker, this may be how Mr. Trump liquidates real estate during one of his infamous bankruptcies, but it is no way to manage public infrastructure.

Now, the Bureau of Reclamation owns some of the most important public water infrastructure in America, including hundreds of dams, canals, and other associated infrastructure. Reclamation's infrastructure helps deliver water to tens of millions of people, and it serves numerous stakeholders, including municipal and industrial water users, farmers, Tribes, fishermen, and environmental and recreational interests.

H.R. 3281 irresponsibly gives the Secretary of the Interior new authority to transfer title, which is another term for relinquishing ownership, to a broad range of reclamation water projects.

Now, this bill's proponents have claimed that it only expedites the relinquishment of small and easy projects that the Federal Government should no longer own. I wish that were the case.

Mr. Speaker, if that were actually the case, we would have a bipartisan bill, and I would be standing here in support of it, because I have supported title transfers for select, noncontroversial projects when it made sense for taxpayers and the public. In cases of canals and waterworks that don't affect water operations and diversions, and where there is no significant opposition from Tribes or downstream users, it does make sense, to me, for Congress to give the executive branch some leeway to dispose of these facilities, as long as appropriate safeguards are in place.

Unfortunately, the bill before us allows this administration to unilaterally relinquish ownership of a very broad range of public water projects without appropriate safeguards that should be there to make sure taxpayers and other stakeholders are protected.

In fact, this bill is written so broadly that it would allow the Secretary of the Interior to hand over multipurpose water projects that have no business being owned by one water user.

Now, the fact is, many of Reclamation's water projects need to be operated in a manner that balances difficult, conflicting interests. Giving up ownership and control of that project, handing it over to a single water user will, in some cases, result in significant harm to the many other interests who have a stake in the operation of Federal water projects.

I am also sorry to say that this bill is a bad deal for taxpayers. It allows the Secretary of the Interior to hand over publicly owned infrastructure and other Federal assets to private interests without appropriate taxpayer compensation.

For example, it fails to require that taxpayers be compensated for the loss of publicly owned lands and mineral interests. And whenever the Federal Government gives away Federal assets, we should ensure that taxpayers who paid for these assets are properly compensated. This bill utterly fails on that score.

I must also point out that H.R. 3281 unwisely removes longstanding and necessary congressional oversight for an overly broad range of projects. Under existing law, Congress has responsibility to oversee and approve the transfer of Federal water projects to ensure that transfers are in the public interest.

This bill eliminates Congress' current oversight and approval authority for a host of projects that deserve scrutiny before they are given away--not after, but before they are given away. Congress should think twice before it surrenders power and lets this administration irresponsibly give away the public's infrastructure.

Before closing, I should also note that this bill is rightfully opposed by numerous conservation organizations, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and many others.

Conservation-minded Americans oppose this bill because transferring ownership of Federal water projects to non-Federal operators will frequently mean less protection for the environment. That is because non-Federal water projects often don't have to be operated with the same environmental protections that apply to water projects operated, owned by Federal agencies.

For example, projects operated by Federal agencies must comply with certain provisions in section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Those same requirements would no longer apply if a water project was operated by a non-Federal entity.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I request a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought up that Vice President Al Gore proposed, in certain instances, that title transfer might make sense. That is correct.

But I have also acknowledged that I, myself, have proposed that, in appropriate circumstances, title transfers can make sense. They can be good for water users, for the taxpayers, and for other users as long as the right safeguards are in place.

What we are really talking about here, though, is a bill that fails to work in that narrowly tailored space that Al Gore and myself and others have been willing to work. This bill does not include those safeguards. This bill would not be limited to small, noncontroversial projects. It could apply to very large multiuse projects, and it could apply to those projects in ways that do not include safeguards to protect other stakeholders and other interests. That is why we disagree on this point.

Now, it has also been argued that because water districts have repaid the Federal Government through water rates, somehow, that effectively means they should have an entitlement to transfer of these facilities.

A couple points need to be emphasized here.

First, under reclamation law, water districts generally only pay a fraction of the total cost to construct reclamation water projects. The rest of these costs have been borne by taxpayers because the projects were deemed to have public benefits, such as fish and wildlife enhancement and recreation.

Given the billions spent by taxpayers on reclamation projects, it is appropriate for the public to maintain ownership of projects, especially in cases where title transfer could result in operational changes that jeopardize those public benefits for which the public has borne the cost.

Now, project construction costs that are borne by water districts are further reduced by various taxpayer subsidies that should be part of the equation, including federally subsidized, zero-interest financing, power subsidies, and write-offs of debt owed to taxpayers that are deemed beyond a water district's ``ability to pay'' under reclamation law.

And then, finally, it is important to note that even water districts who pay for this water over time, they still don't pay for any land that might be appurtenant to these facilities. That land, under this bill, would go along with the title transfer, and so would the mineral rights underneath that land. These would be essentially bonus subsidies, potentially, to these water districts without proper compensation to the U.S. taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, we need to insist on the safeguards that I and others, when we worked on this issue, have proposed and that are so lacking, unfortunately, in this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on my friend's point about privatization, let me just clarify that, in many cases, water districts, certainly many of those in California and many of those that serve agricultural interests in the Central Valley, are comprised and governed by private agribusiness owners and private landowners. They elect the board. They set the agenda.

Further, by the terms of this bill, it allows transfer to joint power entities which, under California law, at least--I would suspect, the laws of other States as well--can include nonpublic agency entities.

So I believe the concern about privatization is certainly valid in this case.

Now, the gentleman from California has mentioned the fact that one of the safeguards in legislation that I have proposed has been included in this bill. I am grateful for that. But the back end protection of the possibility of a joint resolution coming out of Congress within a certain period of time, while not insignificant, is pretty hard to actually achieve in a slow-moving Congress.

Far more important are the other safeguards that were in my legislation on the front end of the process, including safeguards that were intended to ensure that bigger multiuse, more controversial, more public benefit-oriented

projects would not be subject to this type of authority by the executive branch.

Those front-end protections are important, and the most important of them, of course, is that for those type of projects, Congress would retain project-by-project approval authority, and not cede it to the executive branch.

In effect, my bill included a belt and two suspenders. At best, the bill from my friend from Colorado includes one suspender and nothing else. So we disagree on the adequacy of these safeguards.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Colorado.

So let's talk about this Huffman safeguard that has been discussed most recently. It is a perfectly good piece of a safeguard framework, if it is accompanied by all of the other pieces that went with it and that are designed to go with it. And that included all of the front-end protections that were part of the legislation I had proposed, but which my Republican colleagues did not include in their bill, to make sure that only the right kind of projects--not the controversial ones--were subject to this new grant of authority to the executive branch. That is what this is all about.

Simply tacking on one safeguard, which, frankly, was the flimsiest of them all to begin with, doesn't come anywhere close to addressing the problem. As I have said, instead of a belt and suspenders, it is a single suspender--a perfectly good suspender, but try walking around with one suspender all day long and you will find it not very adequate.

This bill recklessly authorizes the de facto privatization of public infrastructure. It fails to protect interests of numerous stakeholders, including American taxpayers, Tribes, fishing groups, environmental and recreational interests, and, finally, it comes from the bankrupt Trump infrastructure plan that reflects this administration's failed privatization philosophy.

The public deserves a real infrastructure plan, not a shell game that simply gives away and privatizes existing public infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the part where I give the usual stipulation that this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

This amendment is simple. The underlying bill allows the Department of the Interior to dole out publicly owned infrastructure and other public assets to water districts.

My amendment simply says, the Department of the Interior can't give away public assets to a water district if that district has employed the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Interior as a lobbyist in the previous 3 years.

Put another way, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary can't give away public infrastructure to those who recently signed their lobbying paychecks. It should go without saying that this basic ethics requirement is needed, particularly in this administration, where conflicts of interest and corruption run so rampant.

The Department of the Interior has been mired in scandals. The Interior Secretary's actions have triggered at least 10 government investigations. It was also recently revealed that the Secretary and/or his family, are currently in a business partnership to develop a former industrial site with the chairman of the energy company, Halliburton. Halliburton, of course, has a lot of business pending before the Department of the Interior. This is an outrageous conflict of interest, and demonstrates how hollow the President's pledge to drain the swamp has been.

Further, Mr. Speaker, Interior Deputy Secretary Bernhardt, the number two official at the agency, was most recently employed as a Federal lobbyist and had a long list of clients with business before the Department, including clients who stand to gain with the passage of this bill by taking ownership of public infrastructure. We must not allow such blatant conflicts to stand.

It is time for Congress to exercise some oversight over this administration and install some basic rules of accountability and ethics.

If my Republican colleagues are serious about exercising their oversight responsibilities, they will support my amendment. It simply makes sure that the public's assets cannot be given away to big business and narrow special interests if those same interests employed agency leadership in the past 3 years.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. It should be better called the empty oceans act.

H.R. 200 really risks rolling back science-based conservation efforts, destroying jobs, and hurting our fisheries and fish stocks. It undermines successful sustainable fishery management put in place by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That is why so many fishermen, scientists, and business owners have come out in opposition to the empty oceans act. Many people whose livelihood comes from the sea have expressed reservations about the job-destroying provisions of H.R. 200 and how it poses a threat to the commercial fishing industry and their jobs, which rely on sustainable practices.

The Seafood Harvesters of America, a leading trade organization for fishermen, authored a letter expressing their concerns with the bill. More than 1,000 individuals and organizations have expressed their opposition. I had a number of fishermen come by my office today, telling me that this bill could cost them their jobs.

Since its passage, the goal of Magnuson-Stevens has never wavered: managing fisheries to ensure sustainability while, of course, realizing the potential of the resource. Magnuson-Stevens takes a bottom-up approach to resource management where stakeholders on regional fishery management councils work to meet the science-based criteria outlined by the law.

We have some success with this approach. Since the year 2000, we have seen 44 previously depleted fish stocks rebuilt. Currently, 84 percent of fish stocks are no longer overfished.

In 1976, Magnuson-Stevens was passed to end unregulated fishing predominantly by foreign fleets and to develop our own American fleets that could benefit from our abundant fisheries. The act was strengthened in 1996 and 2006 through bipartisan reauthorizations that established science-based fishery management reforms.

The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens bolstered requirements to prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. And, in 2006, a bipartisan authorization maintained the commitment to sustainable fisheries, including accountability and catch limits. These bipartisan efforts succeeded to help create the sustainable fisheries that support coastal economies throughout America and, of course, consumers both in America and worldwide.

Unfortunately, unlike past reauthorizations, H.R. 200 was crafted through a partisan committee process intent on dismantling much of the progress made by Magnuson-Stevens over the last 40 years. In fact, the bill was reported in a party-line vote--Republicans for; Democrats against--with the Republicans continuing to reject attempts to come up with a broad bipartisan approach, as this bill has traditionally been done, that supports both commercial and recreational fishing interests and, of course, maintaining science-based reforms around sustainability.

Sadly, H.R. 200 inserts politics into how we manage our fisheries in several crucial areas. The bill erodes the role that science plays in managing our fisheries.

The bill guts science-based annual catch limit requirements through the creation of many exemptions for key species. These exemptions include many smaller fish that are absolutely critical as prey for valuable commercial and recreational predator species as part of a delicately balanced ecosystem. Hundreds of other species are exempted through this bill which dramatically increases the chances that overfishing will occur, leading to the devastation, both for sportsmen and commercial fishermen.

Catch limits are important to help conserve fisheries and are among the most successful provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. By eroding those provisions, this bill would allow for a long-term depletion of fish stocks. It can devastate the economies of local communities, destroy jobs, and threaten the recovery and stability of our ocean ecosystems.

This bill also weakens the data collection requirements that ensure that data-driven, science-based management is used for our fisheries. Data is currently collected through a broad range of sources, and the determination of the best available data is used by NOAA Fisheries and the regional fishery management councils. H.R. 200 would weaken data collection processes and harm the role of science in successful management of our fishery resources.

Weakening science-based provisions is only one of the ways that this bill inserts politics into what should be a scientific question, the management of our fisheries. This bill not only erodes science-based management practices, but it rolls back meaningful accountability requirements for recreational anglers. Large groups representing a few members of the fishing community and businesses that sell equipment and boats want to see that these jobs are sustained over time.

According to data from the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation released in May of 2018, participation in recreational fishing has increased for the past 2 years; 49 million Americans went fishing in 2017, an increase over the prior year. So the recreational side is strong under the current provisions of Magnuson-Stevens.

And, of course, recreational fishermen are not the only beneficiaries of the science-based approach. According to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, U.S. sales of boats and marine products increased 7 percent since the last passage in 2016.

So from 2016 to 2017, we saw a number of States: Florida, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Georgia, with double-digit increases in the sales of new boats, engines, trailers, and accessories, creating good jobs for Americans.

Recreational anglers and the businesses that rely upon their support are doing well and thriving, and this growth is a direct result of science-based fishery management practices fostered by Magnuson that this very bill would systematically dismantle, destroying good American jobs.

Instead of destroying jobs, what the Magnuson-Stevens Act does is ensure that our maritime industries will thrive now and in the future. And because of the success of Magnuson-Stevens, U.S. fisheries are stabilizing and rebounding.

With the bill working as intended, it would be absurd to pass this bill and roll back these very policies that have led to job creation and growth, increased enjoyment for recreational fishermen, and better sustainable practices of ecosystem management.

The Empty Oceans Act also inserts dangerous loopholes into Magnuson and it is including exemptions to rebuilding requirements that have helped recover successfully depleted fish stocks.

H.R. 200 potentially exempts hundreds of species from annual catch limits. That can dramatically increase overfishing, and overfishing may seem to some lucrative, or to some fun in the short-term, but of course it has devastating and nonsustainable consequences for our coastal communities that economically depend on the vital industries of recreational fishing and sports fishing.

These exemptions increase the chance of overfishing and lengthen the time it takes to rebuild depleted stocks to healthy levels, if ever.

These loopholes have a devastating effect as well on the commercial fishing industry and on consumers across the country that enjoy eating healthy fish. In 2015, commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated $208 billion in revenue, supported 1.6 million jobs, and supported the healthy dining habits of hundreds of millions of American consumers, billions worldwide.

These economic benefits not only support recreational anglers and commercial fishing interests but entire towns and cities that rely on sports fishermen, recreational and commercial, as the entire hub of their economy.

If the Empty Oceans Act were to pass, the long-term prospects of so many communities would be devastated. So I think it is important to have a thoughtful look at how we can continue the bipartisan tradition of building upon the progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, making corrections where we need to, but making sure that we put science first in our ocean stewardship, and making sure that we have a sustainable approach to recreational and commercial fishing.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

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

As we approach another election cycle, it is very important for this institution to do everything we can to ensure transparency and safety in our elections and the integrity of the election system itself.

Our democracy is being threatened by corporations, by special interests, and by foreign powers who are stripping away power from our people and our voters with dark money spending.

Secret spending in our elections has exploded since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision permitting super-PACs and certain tax-exempt groups to spend unlimited sums, including, in many cases, undisclosed funds. The result is unprecedented levels of spending and a midterm election expected to be the most expensive ever.

Many of these groups don't even have to disclose their donors, allowing wealthy corporations and individuals and illicit foreign influencers to secretly spend unlimited dark money.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cicilline's legislation, H.R. 6239, the DISCLOSE Act, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. This bicameral bill would require organizations spending money in Federal elections to disclose their donors and guard against hidden foreign interference in our democracy.

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 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer Mr. Cicilline's amendment for the DISCLOSE Act. That is why we are talking about that bill today.

The DISCLOSE Act is an alternative to this job-destroying bill and anticonsumer bill that we have before us. So I would encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can shine a light on the dark money that continues to pervade and pollute and distort our political system. I would hope that that is something we can agree on.

I hope my Republican and Democratic friends will vote to defeat the previous question because it doesn't matter what one's ideology is. What matters is there should be transparency in money in politics, and that is a basic tenet that I hope conservatives and liberals and moderates can agree on, and we can immediately move to that. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer that amendment based on the bill by Mr. Cicilline, which I am honored to be a cosponsor of.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third attempt to undermine the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that protects jobs and uses science in decisionmaking with regard to managing our ocean resources. These attempts failed every time, and the biggest reason they failed is the framework of Magnuson is working.

We talked about the increase in boat sales. We talked about the increase in jobs. We talked about the benefit to consumers. I am sure there is some fine tuning to do, but it is not time to push the reset button and start over down a very dangerous path that would destroy jobs and the entire economies of many of our local communities.

This act has been essential, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in restoring our depleted fishing populations, helping communities devastated by overfishing, getting them back in balance. Science-based reforms over the last two decades have made our fisheries more profitable and rebuilt overfished stocks and have been of great benefit to consumers. These reforms have directly benefited recreational fishing interests, and that is reinforced by their own data of the industry.

So if we continue down the path of sustainable fisheries management, commercial and recreational fishermen will see even greater financial gains and support in the future. In fact, NOAA estimates that fully rebuilt fisheries would add $31 billion to our economy and create 500,000 new jobs.

We need a benchmark and a path to get there, not a pathway to the past of unsustainable practices and job destruction, which this bill does.

These potential jobs and revenues--$31 billion, 500,000 jobs--would support thousands of coastal communities throughout America, consumers across our country and the world, far outweighing any short-term benefit from an empty oceans act.

Only through science-based fisheries management can coastal towns and cities reap enormous environmental benefits. So, instead of throwing it away, we should build upon the proven sustainable fisheries management practices of Magnuson-Stevens in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, this bill halts decades of progress, ends the science-based approach.

Rather than approving harmful and damaging measures to weaken our economy and harm the environment, let's start again and begin a true bipartisan reauthorization, as this Congress did in 1996, as this Congress did in 2006, to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can move forward with our discussion of requiring that donations into political campaigns and allied groups have to be disclosed and to also vote ``no'' on the rule so that we begin work on a bipartisan reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, building upon the tradition of this institution and putting science in the front.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 965 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 965 provides for consideration of H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

This structured rule makes in order 11 amendments, including 4 minority and 2 bipartisan amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in coastal Alabama, so I have spent my entire life experiencing the long-held tradition of fishing off the Gulf Coast. Some of my best memories growing up were fishing with my family, and I have carried on that same tradition with my children. I look forward to fishing with my grandchildren once they get a little older.

This isn't a tradition unique to the Gulf Coast. All along America's shores, countless families and friends have made so many memories while fishing.

No one wants to be a better steward of our Nation's fisheries than those of us who actually enjoy fishing. No one wants a healthier fish stock than those of us who have spent our lives on the water.

That is where H.R. 200 comes in. This bill includes commonsense reforms to ensure that our Nation's fisheries remain strong, while also being accessible to fishermen from every walk of life.

Now, I know this bill is about much more than just those of us who like to fish recreationally. Commercial fishing is a major economic engine in many of our coastal communities, so the bill also ensures access to our oceans and ocean resources for our commercial fishermen.

Just consider these numbers that demonstrate the overall impact of fishing on the U.S. economy:

In 2015, the fishing industry generated $208 billion in sales and supported 1.62 million American jobs.

Approximately 11 million saltwater anglers spent a total of $60.9 million on fishing trips, which generated roughly $22.7 billion in income.

And I want to make one other point. The underlying bill will also ensure that all Americans have access to fresh, sustainable seafood. That is important to our Nation's restaurants, but it is also especially important to seafood lovers like me.

If you doubt the importance of the fishing sector, let me tell you about red snapper fishing in my home State of Alabama. It is a major economic driver for our coastal communities. From restaurants, to gas stations, to bait and tackle shops, to the charter boat industry, red snapper fishing is critically important to the economy in our coastal communities and surrounding areas.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed for years to adequately count the number of red snapper in the Gulf. This has resulted in ridiculously short red snapper seasons, which hurt our fishermen and the economies in our coastal communities.

So, how bad was the Federal Government in counting red snapper? Well, they weren't even sampling for red snapper on reefs, despite the fact that red snapper are reef fish. It made absolutely no sense.

Colleges and universities, like the University of South Alabama, have been able to do a much better job of assessing the health of the red snapper stock with far fewer resources. Their data has proven to be much more accurate and up to date.

Thankfully, along with my Gulf Coast colleagues, we have been able to work with the Trump administration and the Commerce Department to ensure adequate recreational red snapper seasons over the last 2 years. But this bill includes reforms I authored to help fix the mismanagement of red snapper for all sectors, once and for all. That means allowing for greater State control, especially as it relates to stock assessments and data collection.

That is one of the best things about H.R. 200. The bill eliminates unscientific timeframes to rebuild fish stocks that unnecessarily restrict access to fisheries. Our national fishery policy should be based on sound, accurate data.

The bill goes against the Washington-knows-best approach that has failed so many times in the past. By providing greater flexibility to fishery managers, we can allow for better management strategies that reflect regional needs and demands. We should empower people who live and work in the local communities, instead of letting bureaucrats in Washington decide what works best.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill will allow more Americans to have access to fresh, sustainable seafood. Currently, around 90 percent of seafood consumed in the United States is imported. This is especially troubling when you consider that we have an abundance of fish right here in our own waters. With reforms included in this bill, we can boost access to affordable domestic fish.

Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 200, the House can support our Nation's fishermen, American consumers, our coastal communities, and the overall American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 965 and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman referenced a letter from the Seafood Harvesters of America. In their letter dated June 21 of 2018, this group claims that section 12 of the bill repeals a section of the MSA. There hasn't been a section 12 in this bill since November of 2017. There is no section 12.

The letter also claims that section 4 undermines rebuilding timelines. Section 4 of this bill simply states that all references in H.R. 200 are to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, unless otherwise stated; doesn't do anything like what is claimed.

As the most egregious example, this group is so committed to opposing this

bill, no matter what changes we make, they reference a bill that, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists.

The gentleman also said something about this bill being job- destroying.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about the destruction of jobs. When the present regime was running the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper, they limited the number of days for fishing to such a small number that it destroyed hundreds, if not thousands of jobs across just my part of the Gulf Coast when people were no longer allowed to go out and go snapper fishing.

Charter boat folks lost their jobs. People that sell ice or bait lost their jobs. It was the Federal bureaucracy that was destroying jobs.

This bill will give us a commonsense regime that will restore jobs. So, far from being a job-destroying bill, this bill is going to create jobs.

The gentleman also referred to a bottoms-up approach. I have been working on this issue for over 4 years, and I can tell you, the bottom, which is us recreational fishermen, we haven't been listened to one single time by the Federal bureaucracy. They closed their doors in our face.

If you want to have a bottoms-up approach to this sort of thing, this bill supplies it. What we have got right now certainly doesn't do it.

One of the most important things that is involved here is, who does the science? Do you let a bunch of Federal scientists far away from where the fisheries are make these decisions? Or do you let scientists that are in the areas where the fisheries exist, do you let them do the science?

I am not talking about just any Tom, Dick, or Harry out there that calls himself a scientist. I am talking about Ph.D. scientists with accredited universities who know the fishery. This bill would allow that to happen, so that you could get good, accurate data, because they don't have it today.

Let me go back to what I said initially on the red snapper issue.

The Federal scientists were sampling for red snapper on sandy bottom. These are reef fish. You are not going to find reef fish on sandy bottom. You find them on reefs. And if you talk to real scientists, they will tell you there is no way you are going to get an accurate assessment of this fish stock if you are looking for them on sandy bottom. You have got to look for them on reefs.

Let me tell you, there are over 170 groups that have signed on to being supportive of this bill. I do not have time to read all the names to you, but let me just read a few. The first one is the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. I go to their events up here, like many other Members of Congress. When I was at one just recently, there were hundreds of Members of Congress there from both parties. It couldn't get to be any bigger, and it couldn't get to be any more bipartisan.

The Coastal Conservation Association, the Premier Recreational Anglers Association in America, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which the gentleman referred to as if they were opposed to it. They support the bill.

The National Coalition for Fishing Communities and the Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation. This is a very broadly, deeply supported bill among people who are actually fishing.

Now, it may not be supported by people who don't fish and who don't know anything about fishing; but for those of us who do fish, whether we are commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen, we like it.

And it is time for Congress to understand that the waters of the United States of America do not belong to the Congress, and they do not belong to these Federal departments and agencies. They belong to the people of America, and the people of America have a right to fish in their waters. This bill will help restore that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I want to make sure that I can assure him and everybody in this House this bill doesn't cut funding to anything. It's an authorization bill, and it reauthorizes the Magnuson- Stevens Act with some changes, but those changes do not include a reduction in funding.

But here is the thing about fishing that people that don't fish don't understand. Those of us that fish, we care about this fishery more than anybody else because if we overfish the stock, we don't get to fish anymore. No one has a greater interest in making sure that the species in our waters are maintained than those of us that fish, whether we are commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen. So there is no interest here that is being served to try to somehow harm our fishery.

We believe, and it has actually been demonstrated to be true, that local communities, regional people, can better regulate, sample, bring science to the health of these fish stock than giving it to some bureaucrat in Washington that doesn't know one single thing about our fishery.

We care. We care deeply, because it is a way of life for us, and the last thing we want to do is do anything that would harm these fish stock out there.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the fisheries of America. If the folks on the other side of the aisle want to address the issue that they just referenced, then I am sure they could foreswear taking any corporate contributions, any anonymous contributions to their accounts for themselves. So they could lead by their example, and I look forward to seeing them do that.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the fisheries of America, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. There are bipartisan cosponsors to this bill. This is a bipartisan bill.

What is this bill really about? It is about freedom. It is about the freedom of the American people to be able to use their own waters, to fish in their own waters, something the American people have done since before we were a nation.

There is a really great book that just came out that won the Pulitzer Prize called ``The Gulf,'' about the Gulf of Mexico. It recounts the history of our area and how long we have been fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and what it has meant for generations upon generations of both commercial and recreational fishermen.

I have commercial fisherpeople in my family, and they are wonderful people, have a great business. It is important to them and it is their way of life. We need to make sure we do everything to preserve that way of life.

I am a recreational fisherman, and we have been doing it in my family for generations, and I want to preserve that as well.

My grandfather was one of the founders of the Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo, one of the oldest and largest fishing tournaments in the United States of America. It is really great to see, summer after summer, generations of people who have been fishing in that tournament, literally for three or four or five generations, come down there on Dauphin Island and bring the fish that they catch, so proud of what they have done.

And what have they just done? They have gone out in their own boat at their own expense, spent a day in the open air on a beautiful summer day, or maybe 2 or 3 days, and got some time to spend time together as a family, with friends, and do something Americans have been able to do without the Federal Government trying to tell them how to do it for a couple, 300 years.

It is time for us to restore back to the American people the control of their waters. That is what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 965 and the underlying bill.

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

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.