members will be considering debate rules for bills dealing with federal mandate reporting which they plan to finish today and small business regulations to be debated tomorrow. and now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain,

reverend dean curie life center church, at that comba, washington. the chaplain: let us pray. father, what an honor it is to be in your presence here today. we celebrate this morning what you have done to the united states of america. we acknowledge the hand of providence in our history and the force of inspiration in our future. be with us here now most significantly in our present, that we can see what others do not see, that we can do what others fear to do, so that we can change what others are afraid to change. we are reminded that we are so small and urso big. our problems are -- you are so big. our problems are daunlting and our responsibilities are many. but we look to you today, to your principles and to your goodness, that we could be everything you designed for us to be. that we could do everything you planned for us to do. that others may be free.

today may every decision made, every plan contemplated be sprinkled with your grace and inspired from heaven. change us change our minds and our hearts, that we may change our destiny and the destiny of others both here and around the world. i pray this with respect to all faiths, in the name of jesus of nazareth, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval theo pursua tclse of ru 1 the jonal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski. mrs. walorski: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, is recognized for one minute.

mr. kilmer: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to honor today's guest chaplain, reverend dean curry from tacoma, washington. we are blessed to have such a remarkable pastor with us today who's a leading figure in the region that i represent. reverend curry's life center church in tacoma is a vibrant place where folks young and old can come for worship. he knows what it means to give back to your community. each month he brings together civic and elected leaders in tacoma for a faith breakfast, and volunteers from his church are always helping out those going through hard times. the model of his church sums it up pretty remarkably, it's all about the people. like the united states house of representatives, his mission is to serve the people. reverend curry is an example of how we should do more to listen respect and understand one another better so we can leave a place for future generations where opportunities are available for everyone. reverend curry has also led

humanitarian missions to troubled regions like iraq and afghanistan to offer assistance and hope to those suffering through tragedies. he's someone who walks the walk, when it comes to fighting equality religious freedom and social justice both in his own community and around the world. whether he's listening to stories in refugees settlements or at the prayer breakfast, his honor shines through and it's nice to welcome him today. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 4 2015, at 9:22 a.m. appointment, commission on security and corporation on europe helsinki united states caucus on international narcotic control. signed sincerely, karen l.

haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without obctn. mr. wso mr. speaker congratulations to safe federal credit union which on january 14 celebrated its 60th anniversary of a federal charter. in january, 1955, 15 civilian employees at the air force base organized the safe federal credit union. the membership has expanded to 500 additional groups and eight underserved communities. headquartered in sumpter, south carolina, is now the largest credit union with 108,000 members and $903 million in assets. i'm grateful for the work of safe employees who have

developed a reputation of exemplary service, knowledge and trust under the leadership of safe c.e.o. and president beverly gagney. they have also been on the cutting edge of fraud prevention, which is critical as we address new cybercases of crime. with their professionalism in lending practices, members have created many opportunities and prompted thousands of new jobs. i know firsthand as a real estate attorney closing loans for safe. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president, by his actions, never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. our prayers for the people of jordan as the latest victims of terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. quigley:, mr. speaker, infrastructure investment is key to growing our economy and creating jobs, which is why president obama committed to a 40% increase in infrastructure

funding in his budget release this week. despite the fact that every billion dollars invested in infrastructure creates 30,000 jobs over the past 50 years our investment in infrastructure has shrunk by half. meanwhile, china is investing four times as much as we do in transportation. we need these investments in chicago where we got a century-old transit system that needs updates to keep up with increased capacity. and by the way the chicago transit authority carries more people in a month than amtrak does in a year. we also need 1,000 miles of roads to be repaired 675 bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. our crumbling infrastructure is slowing economic growth, and without serious long-term investments, we simply will not be able to compete in today's global economy. the president outlined his 21st century infrastructure plan this week. now it's time for democrats and republicans in congress to work together on the long-term

transportation bill the american people are asking for. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? mrs. walorski: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. walorski: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today after listening to the stories of veterans and their families. it's very apparent, the v.a. is not doing enough to help victims overcome the physical and psychological pain of military sexual trauma. this week i introduced h.r. 642, a bill that would make victims of military sexual trauma eligible for v.a. travel benefits. those who fight for our freedom have faced enough challenges along the way, expecting them to pay for their own travel, to receive care or treatment for the military -- for the sexual trauma they endured while serving their country is unfair. i'm grateful today to work with representative kuster, representative coffman and representative ruiz on the support of this legislation and

i'm hopeful it's a step in the right direction by helping veterans access much-needed care. i encourage support for h.r. 642 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of go red for women. more than 600,000 women's lives have been saved from heart disease since go red for women was created in 2004. but heart disease still remains the number one killer for women and men and women and men and causes more deaths than all the four cancers. as a national heart association board member, one of columbus, ohio's first go red chairs and a member of the congressional heart caucus, i rise today to recognize the survivors, those

battling with heart disease and those who are fighting in working to find cures and improved treatment. today, members of congress will stand together, democrats and republicans, in red to send a message to the nation that as colleagues we can stand and celebrate the american heart association and its go red for women campaign. mr. speaker, working together we will make a second and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? without. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i stand here today to recognize a true american hero. utah veteran billy kirkbridge, who was just aword warded the congressional gold -- awarded the congressional gold medal. he was chosen to be part of the unique program called the first special service force, which was the forerunner to today's

special forces. it was here he became a member of the very elite devil's brigade. the congressional gold medal is awarded to those who have performed amazing feats, leaving permanent impacts upon american culture and history. as a former air force pilot, i know the sacrifice and the dedication that it takes to become one of america's elite warriors. and it's an honor to stand here today not just before the american people but before his lovely wife and daughters. to pay tribute to the sacrifice and dedication that billy showed through his service to this great nation. he just doesn't represent the strength of the armed forces, he represents american values that continue to make our nation great and millions of us are grateful for his service and with that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? wowed.

ms. kelly: mr. speaker, today i rise on behalf of the millions of illinois veterans that i represent and their families to draw attention to the high rate of veteran unemployment in america. after fighting for our nation, far too many military heroes are being forced to fight for a job here at home. despite many veterans having the leadership skills and work ethic that businesses are looking for, the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans is 6.9% far higher than the national average of 5.6%. i am committed to reducing veteran unemployment and helping our heroes find quality work. last week i released an updated edition of my veterans resource guide book to help our veterans get the benefits they've earned and employment resources to get them and their families back in the work force, but we need to do more. i urge my colleagues to work with me to pass the veterans job bill, to put the half million unemployed veterans

back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. coffman: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lamborn: -- coffman: mr. speaker, i join my colleagues as we address one of the challenges within the veterans administration. our goal ensuring our veterans are provided the best possible care, to heal from the wounds associated with being a victim of military sexual trauma. as has been noted by the veterans affairs inspector general, obtaining travel authorization to the most appropriate clinics to address this specialized care required of military sexual trauma victims has been an obstacle. this bill, house resolution 642 will take care of that. bottom line is that victims of

military sexual assault trauma should be able to obtain the specific care necessary to address their individual needs and not be trapped by a bureaucracy that fails to give them access to treatment because it cannot reconcile how to pay for travel to get to and from a treatment facility. please join me and my colleagues as we stand up for veterans who are victims of military sexual trauma and enable them to obtain the treatment that they need. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pallone: thank you mr. speaker. president obama's budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 lays out a fiscally responsible plan to invest in our future and makes sure that hardworking americans are able to benefit

from an economy that is finally improving. and i'm particularly pleased that the president is committed to make strategic investments. the budget invests $146 billion for r&d across the federal government which is a 6% increase. the budget provides for $7 billion in clean energy funding throughout the federal government, and $2.4 billion to further advance manufacturing technologies. this funding improves our scientific knowledge, creates technologies with widespread benefits and strengthens u.s. global competitiveness. the budget also makes investments in public health, including $31 billion for the national institutes of health, a $1 billion i crease over the 2015 level. and $1.2 billion across several agencies to combat anti-y buy ottic re-- antibiotic resistance and targeted therapies for patients. i mention all these mr. speaker, because i do believe and every evidence shows that research investment creates

jobs, promotes innovation and increases economic development. and that means more jobs. i hope that our republicans will support the president's budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor her oled lehman of matthews, north carolina, a 99-year-young brave patriot who volunteered for the airborne in world war ii because he wanted a tough assignment. he's one of the few paratroopers to make all four world war ii jumps. in sicily, italy, holland and normandy. for his bravery and helping to liberate france from nazi brutality, the french government on tuesday awarded him their honor of legion medal. mr. pittenger: his dedication extends beyond the battlefield. following his discharge after

world war ii, he volunteered for another year's active duty to help escort the bodies of fallen soldiers as they were returned home. please join me in thanking harold for his bravery and sacrifice in fighting for freedom, an exemplary example of the great estrogen ration. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of a true trail blazer, ms. walter barber, the first black woman to serve on the fort worth city council. just like many of the constituents i serve, ms. barber was a product of the segregated high school in fort worth. she graduated from the school in 1937 and went on to earn her bachelor's degree from prairie view a&m and her master's degree from atlanta university in georgia. ms. barber served on the fort

worth city council from 1977 to 1979. during her tenure on the council, she advocated for a health clinic that now sits in the stop six community where she lived. summer food programs for low income children. recreation alpha silts for the community -- recreation alpha silts for the -- recreational facilities for the community and a fire station. ms. barber is survived by her daughter, holly, her son, walter -- her son robert barber jr., as well as two grandchildren. i ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring a true legend, ms. walter barber, who broke so many barriers at a time when women faced so many obstacles, as well as african-americans. but she still worked hard to live the american dream. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, while i'm very proud to represent punxsutawney, pennsylvania, we woke up on ground hog day to a budget proposal that feels like the infinite loop loaded with the same tax and spend policies that have not worked for the president or the american people. the president's budget proposal is a hard left u-turn that attempts to undo the three connective years of more responsible, less discretionary spending. while congress only has the power of the purse, this budget altogether ignores our staggering national debt, which is more than $18.1 trillion. despite $2.1 trillion of proposed tax increases, president obama's budget never never balances. ever. since 2009 $7.5 trillion has been added to the national debt and expenditures amount to more than $21.1 trillion. the president's budget request recommends addsing a staggering additional $8.5 trillion to the debt. mr. speaker, we need smart

budgeting to fund our priorities without doing harm to families, small businesses and future generations. the american people deserve no less. thank you, mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker this week president obama unveiled his fiscal year 2015 -- 2016 budget that outlines his funding priorities for the year ahead. this proposal builds on the economic prosecute gress we've made by properly -- progress we've made by properly focusing on middle class initiatives and supports initiatives that create jobs, educate young people, increase access to affordable child care, repairs our crumbling roads and bridges and keeps communities safe. all to ensure that the american economy works for everyone and that recovery reaches all americans. the president's proposal is a strong starting point for congress to work together to produce a smart and sensible budget that reflects the priorities of working americans, keeps our country safe and our economy growing. i urge my republican colleagues

to drop their misguided proposals to benefit special interests, repeal the affordable care act and restrict women's health care decisions and focus instead on a bipartisan budget agreement that ensures all americans share in our country's growing recovery and makes the right investments for our future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today because i believe the american people deserve to know how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent. mr. walberg: and that's why i introduced the taxpayer right to know act. congress is known for its complex bills, but this one is pretty simple. it requires each federal agency to provide taxpayers an annual report card of what they're doing with the money they've been given. with a government this large, it's no secret we have waste and duplication. by better tracking government

spending, we can look back and identify the outdated programs that should be eliminated or streamlined to save money. as the people's representatives, we are here to be responsible stewards of their tax dollars. and this bipartisan bill is as good as a good start to stopping wasteful spending. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware seek recognition? without objection. mr. carney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker i rise today to urge my colleagues to pass legislation that limits the role of money in politics. since the citizens united decision in 2010, the role of fundraising and spending in political campaigns has gotten even more out of control than it was before. that's why i introduced the constitutional amendment, h.j.r. 24, that allows congress and the states to rein in

campaign contributions. it's also why i co-sponsored the disclose act the government by people's act and the democracy for all amendment. all designed to limit the influence of money in our political system. the american people need to know that their elected officials are here to serve them and not big campaign contributors. the overwhelming amount of money spent on campaigns weakens people's faith in our political system. mr. speaker, i urge house leadership to take up legislation to address this issue. we need to change our laws to get money out of politics and keep our focus on where it belongs, doing the right thing for the american people. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, with the rise of isis or isil in syria and iraq, we've seen the brutality of islamic extremism to an extent previously unimaginable. in just the last week, i --

isil beheaded two japanese citizens and revealed that a jordanian pilot had been burned alive in a cage. mr. pitts: this is why it is more criltcal than ever that we support our moderate allies in the region and praise their efforts to protect religious minorities. in egypt, the president recently became the first modern leader in the country's history to visit a coptic christian church on christmas eve. the cathedral he visited had been attacked just two years earlier by islamic extremists. by contrast, in regions controlled by isil, groups that have lived in the same community for more than 1,000 years have been killed or fled for their lives. we must never forget that the mission of the extremists is not regional but global dominance and it's aimed at all who refuse to submit to their harsh interpretation of their religion. we must stand together with leaders like the king of jordan and the president of egypt who speak up and act to defeat islamic extremism and give them our strong support. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker once again our country is seeing the dangerous effects of failing to listen to science. in 2000 the united states had effectively eliminated measles, an effort 40 years in the making. but all of that progress is quickly coming undone. not by an act of nature, but by willful ignorance. last year there were 644 cases of measles in the united states. the highest number in 20 years. and already this year there have been 102 cases in 14 states, including my home state of illinois. this is a dangerous game and one that some elected officials are encouraging. as leaders, it is our duty to inform the public of the truth. for those of us with scientific and medical backgrounds, this duty falls even more seriously. when you fail to vaccinate, it

is not just yourself and your children that you're putting in danger, it is everyone that you come into contact with. and when politicians give voice to misinformation and paranoia, they're putting us all at risk. mr. foster: measles may not spread as fast as sound bites and tweets, but they both have the potential for it to cause a great amount of damage. i know that many of my colleagues have reminded us that they're not scientists, as they used this as an excuse for their advocacy of bad public policy. but it does not take a scientist to realize that opposing vaccines is wrong. accent a valid medical -- absent a valid medical reason for exclusion, vaccines are critical for every man, woman and child in our country, period. thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to

highlight the important health care issue surrounding the national cancer prevention day. this day is an opportunity for health care providers policymakers and other community leaders to educate people on the healthy activities and behaviors that could prevent this disease. while we learn more and more every year about how to best treat cancer, more must be done to focus on preventing cases from ever occurring. today is a reminder to patients to make it their business to learn the activities and behaviors to decrease the incidents of this disease. mr. benishek: as a doctor i treated patients in northern michigan, i'm far too familiar with the devastating impact that cancer has on countless lives every day. i hope that all my colleagues in the house and the senate will join me in the 114th congress to remember the victims of cancer, to honor the survivors and to do everything in our power to prevent future cases of this disease. thank you and i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? without objection. ms. kuster: thank you mr. speaker. today i'm proud to again partner with my colleague, jackie walorski from indiana, to reintroduce legislation to extend veterans' travel benefits to veterans traveling to seek treatment for injuries resulting from sexual trauma in the military. it's an honor to serve with mrs. walorski on the veterans' affairs committee, one of the most bipartisan committees in the house. and it's a privilege to work with all of our colleagues, republicans and democrats, in service to our nation's veterans. we must ensure that victims can access the high-quality care that every veteran is guaranteed when he or she joins the military. the occurrence of sexual trauma in the military is outrageous enough. but it's something our brave service men and women should

never be forced to experience. what's even worse, many survivors of military sexual trauma have trouble accessing the physical and mental health services they need when they return home. because the v.a. does not provide travel benefits to all victims of m.s.t. this legislation is a great first step in further protecting the thousands of service men and women who are survivors of military sexual violence. i urge swift passage and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? without objection. guillen guillen mr. speaker, i rise -- gun gun mr. speaker, i rise today -- mr. gun at that: mr. speaker i -- mr. guinta: mr. speaker, i rise to honor a friend. one of the nation's most successful auto dealers with seven stores and 600 employees

in the granite state and the commonwealth of massachusetts. not only is andy a natural business leader, he's also an outstanding public servant. he's served in the united states marine corps and constantly gives back to the future leaders of our communities. in addition to donating proceeds of auto sales to help feed the needy around thanksgiving time, andy has spearheaded a program to motivate high school seniors in manchester new hampshire, to ac sell in their classes -- excel in their classes for a -- compel in their classes for a chance to win a car. he also works with technical colleges to ensure students are receiving the beft education and training to become the next generation of trained auto technicians. it's people like andy cruz who make me beyond proud to call myself a grand its stater, -- granite stater, chose commitment and passion to the auto industry in our communities is beyond the dealer of the year award and i wish him continued success. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, last april i was horrified when hundreds of girls were kidnapped by boko haram in nigeria because they attended school. to this day, boko haram continues their reign of terror. in approximate early january thousands of -- in early january thousands were slaughtered by these terrorists and this continues with thousands of civilians killed as well. with all of the attention focused on isis and al qaeda,

do not continue to neglect this issue. mr. speaker, we cannot and must not forget about the unspeakable horrors being perpetrated by boko haram. mr. speaker, black lives matter. that is why i'm supporting the jubilee campaign's education after escape initiative, which provides scholarships to the young girls that escaped boko haram and working to support these brave young girls who, despite the horrors they witnessed, maintained dreams of success. they still want and deserve an education. mr. speaker, we have to support the victims of boko haram, just like we support the victims of other terrorist groups. mr. speaker, we have to continue to tweet so the world will know and understand that we are supporting those victims. tweet #bringbackour girls and

#joinrepwilson. tweet, tweet, tweet. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, on march 28, the orange county alzheimer's association will honor four individuals for their extraordinary contributions to advancing research and providing providing care for this debilitating disease. one of them is carol manning, and i'd like to add my voice to the praise of fer if i an tropic work -- of her philantropic work. i met her 30 years. her and her husband were struggling to make ends meet and yet she still volumed for many sieve -- volunteered for many civic matters. she now has a $30 million

enterprise and yes, she and everett did build that business from scratch with a lot of long hours and hard work and personal sacrifice. carol still puts in those long hours and yet she still makes time for so many worthy causes, alzheimer's research being just one. on behalf of all of the people whose lives she's made better i am honored to say thank you, carol manning. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. schrader: mr. speaker, the house of representatives has had four years to bring an immigration bill, any immigration bill to a vote yet has failed to do so. oregon businesses, labor, farmers, farm workers, faith-based groups and human rights advocates have patiently waited for comprehensive immigration reform. so have millions of americans and people all across this

nation as they wait for the legal status to become good and productive members of our society. without comprehensive reforms, oregon businesses are in peril and oregon families live in constant fear. many of us in the house have offered a bipartisan bill, similar to the senate's, with better border enforcement provisions. hardlined right-wing positions have hamstrung these bills. as a result of congressional inaction the president issued executive orders to protect folks who have immigrated to this country and been productive members of society and this economy. this executive order prioritizes deportation who poses harm or threat to society. my hope would then this would spur comprehensive immigration reform. instead, house republicans now play games with the department of homeland security's appropriations and put us all at risk. it's time to act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, now is the time for immigration reform. our nation is already beginning to see some of the great economic benefits of the daca program which i vow to protect as we go through the department of homeland security appropriations process. but the true benefits of immigration reform, which according to congressional budget office, over $200 billion in deficit reduction, finally securing and establishing security in our border implementing mandatory workplace enforcement to prevent people who are here people who are here illegally from undermining the job market for americans and creating over 150,000 jobs for american citizens. those n lycoed if this body takes action and passes immigration reform. we had a bill last session that would have passed the floor of the house and already passed the senate. we begin anew. rather than living in this

groundhog day of repetitious repeals of obamacare let's pass something that promotes economic growth jobs for americans and reduces our deficit. it's called immigration reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 78 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 7 house resolution 78 resolved that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 527, to amend chapter 6 of

title 5, united states code, commonly known as the regulatory flexibility act, to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on small business. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-3. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against

that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report may be -- report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 50 to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing federal mandates, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-4, modified by the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on

rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted.

the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: 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. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: house resolution 78 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of h.r. 50, the unfunded mandates information and transparency act, and h.r. 527, the small business regulatory flexibility

improvements act. mr. speaker every year bureaucrats in washington impose thousands of regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. those mandates can be costly stretching city and state budgets and making it harder for american businesses to hire. the unfunded mandates information and transparency act, h.r. 50, will ensure that people who write these regulations in washington know exactly what they're asking the american people to pay and whether the cost of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat. h.r. 50 will force washington to think carefully about regulatory costs before it passes them onto americans. this bill is about transparency and accountability and something that republicans and democrats can all support. in 1995, congress passed the bipartisan unfunded mandates reform act, umra, legislation

designed to prevent the federal government from imposing unfunded mandates on local businesses without the public knowing the cost of cost policy. umra's main objective was to force the federal government to estimate how much unfunded mandates would cost local governments and businesses and rein in out-of-control mandates. umra ensured public awareness of the crushing final burden of federal mandates on employers and state and local governments. however, umra has not been amended since 1995 and some subtle changes are needed to preserve and improve on the act's initial purposes. umra is a good bill but over time some shortcomings became apparent, such that the clinton and later obama administrations issued executive orders to fix the loopholes within it.

h.r. 50 has bipartisan d.n.a., mr. speaker. it codifies those administrative fixes championed by presidents clinton and obama and promotes good government, accountability and transparency. as a testament to this fact, the bill is co-sponsored by two of my democrat colleagues here in the house representatives collin peterson and loretta sanchez. i owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts in promoting this commonsense bill. the text of h.r. 50 has passed the house on a bipartisan basis three times in the 112th and 113th congress. the bill was most recently favorably reported by the oversight government and reform committee. a common refrain in this business is that, quote, nobody wants to see how the sausage is made end quote. meaning that the process of drafting and passing legislation is so ugly that it would repulse people.

in this case i disagree. i'm extremely proud of this bill and i'm proud of the process by which it has been advanced in the house. i've had the pleasure of working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure and i appreciate their support and counsel. the unfunded mandates reform and transparency act of 1995 was a model for bipartisanship and my hope is that this bill leaves a similar legacy. i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady dr. foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i also express through you my

wishes for her recovery and also appreciate her patriotism in doing her duty to god and country here today, despite her respirorduss i hope atoes not, at she is doing a great job here representing her party on this bill. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. the underlying mandates information and transparency act, as well as the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act. now, the titles of these bills, while lengthy, seem to suggest that somehow these efforts are designed to increase transparency or help small business. their actual impact is quite frankly the opposite. by allowing businesses -- rules to be written behind closed doors by big businesses, and effectively preventing federal agencies from promoting the national interests as they're supposed to, and adding additional bureaucratic red tape and paperwork, these bills represent an assault on the health and safety of our nation's families and threaten to drowned our government in mountains and mountains of unnecessary paperwork. i think that the release of the president's budget this week

shows a contrast between the priorities of both parties' agendas. the president's budget focused on main street, offering new ideas for how we can meet the infrastructure needs of our country, reform our corporate taxes -- tax system, so take american businesses more exet -- to make american businesses more competitive. unfortunately what we continue to see here in this body from the republicans is a groundhog day scenario, where every day every week it's like the movie, we're talking about the same thing over and over again. we have acted on repealing the affordable care act 56 times in this body. here we're back with another set of bills that echo other bills again and again and again. i understand why many people want to do this once and go through, the people who ran on appealing obamacare and passing these bills. once they're done we'll see what the other body does. but to keep coming back, rather than dealing with the critical national priorities i think, simply shows a detachment from

reality. that's one of the reasons that the public holds this body in such low regard. the bill that we considered two weeks ago added 65 new analytical requirements to the process of rulemaking. more red tape, more hurdles. i think what we're seeing here today is maybe that's not enough red tape. we're now looking at bills that allow big business to weigh in before the public create even more hurdles before regulations become public and are implemented. h.r. 50 would effectively require agencies to consult with the private sector before the public is even made aware of the bill. let alone engaged in the rulemaking. this blocks transparency, handy caps public input. i -- handicaps public input. i agree we want businesses to have the opportunity to weigh in, but we want to make sure that every stake holder in a rulemaking process has the opportunity to weigh in equally. in my state of colorado i would be concerned about the erosion of our protection of our great

national areas, like the rocky mountain national park. in those 100 years, the rocky mountains have been thriving. if you visit the park today, you can find streams, elk big horn sheep fields of wild flowers. but if we hadn't designated the park a national treasure and created a comprehensive management plan for its protection, we might very well have lost not only something that relates to our national pride and is beautiful, but frankly is the economic driver in estes park and grand county for much of the economic activity in and around the national park. h.r. 50 would threaten the ability of the national park service to create the kind of management plan that the economy has thrived under in my home state of colorado and in my district. it would essentially create a veto power for legislators and interests that don't believe in the protection of public lands or are willing to threaten the health of our families for enhancement of their bottom

line. there's always going to be somebody that objects. again, we have a thriving tourism economy relating to rocky mountain national park. but i'm sure there are some companies somewhere that would have some interest that is counterveiling to the interests of job creation in our community. and that's why we need to have a transparent and accessible process of listening to stakeholders. we need a system that allows the fort collins nate who have hikes through the rockies every -- native who hikes through the rockies every weekend or the new yorker who visits the springs every spring to be able to participate in protecting those natural resources and the protection of our public health. we need to listen to the small businesses, the hospitality sector, the restaurants and lodges that serve our tourism communities. but by allowing an unfair advantage to out of state corporate interests, we threaten the very principle that makes us american. the ability to participate in our decisions of government at

the level closest to where we are affected. h.r. 50 is a dangerous precedent for policy. it allows additional red tape to be thrown at government agencies representing unnecessary delays and costs that prevent from us creating jobs and growing our economy. we need to move forward with a middle class agenda for our country rather than continuing to live in this groundhog day scenario of repetitious bills that don't discuss how to grow our economy or grow the middle class. yesterday this body attempted to repeal the affordable care act for the 56th time. today the republicans are making two attempts of what i consider to be a very similar thing, damage to regulatory process at all costs, which we already did and we're doing a. they wt s aitnared tape andureaucracy added. whether it's clean air, whether it's clean water, whether it's

consumers, whether it's protecting our children. regardless of the particular area with which we operate. instead of having a cumulative look at regulations, we should have a look at the cuke lative look at all the legislation -- a cumulative look at all the legislation that's been brought before this body and how that impacts small businesses and regulations. earlier this year the house passed the regulatory accountability act. that bill alone added 65 new checkpoints to the regulatory process. this bill would prevent transparency and allow big business to weigh in on regulations before small businesses, before consumers, before other stakeholders, and add an additional tier and red tape to the regulatory process. we need to move forward with improving our regulatory structure. i don't think there's any disagreement about that. some of that can be done through executive action and some of that should be done in a collaborative bipartisan way to streamline the regulatory process, to reduce hurdles for

small businesses while meeting the goals of protecting the american public. unfortunately these bills do neither of those. i encourage mying cloose -- my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from colorado for his kind comments about me and my health . i appreciate all condolences. mr. speaker this resolution also provides for consideration of h.r. 527 the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act of 2015. which is important legislation to improve the federal government's treatment of small businesses. ensuring we're providing the best environment possible to small businesses is vital to support a sector which employs nearly half of america's private sector workers and generates 63% of new private

sector jobs. as a former owner of a nursery, i know well the joyce and trials -- joys and trials of running a small business and am pleased that the house is considering the ta provisis. smalbusinesses nursery, i do not have the staff or background to identify and comply with ever-growing piles of red tape. federal regulations disproportionately impact small businesses which led congress to enact the regulatory flexibility act. the regulatory flexibility ability requires agencies -- flexibility act requires agencies to look at tailoring regulations to minimize adverse impacts on small businesses. unsurprisingly agencies have failed to comply with these requirements in full. they've taken advantage of loopholes failed to acknowledge the entirety of impacts for proposed rules, and issued rules that continue to harm small businesses. that failure necessitates our

actions this week, to consider h.r. 527, the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act. this legislation requires federal agencies to consider a potential economic impact to propose rules on small businesses and nonprofits. it also mandates a 10-year plan to review all rules determined to have a significant economic impact on a substandard -- substantial number of small entities. that will ensure past regulations will not remain on the books unexamined and able to burden small businesses for decades. the legislation also expands regulatory flexibility analysis requirements which are currently used to explain the reasoning behind a proposed rule identified duplicative rules and explain any record keeping or other requirements that may be imposed on small businesses or other small entities. it also requires the small business administration's chief

counsel for advocacy to develop interagency rules for conducting flexibility analyses. these changes will ensure that future regulations are tailored to minimize their impact on small businesses. this will allow small businesses to spend more of their investments and time hiring new employees and growing their businesses, rather than complying with unnecessary burdens from federal regulations. h.r. 527 is a simple, commonsense mandate for the executive branch to work together with small businesses and design smarter, less burdensome rules that work for the american people. and commend it to my colleague for their support -- colleagues for their support. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of legislation that would help veterans make it in america, by establishing a pilot program to encourage the hiring of veterans in manufacturing jobs. to discuss our thoughtful

proposal, i'd like to yield three minutes to a leader on veterans issues, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. delbene. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. delbene: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so that we can consider my proposal to boost education and job training for our veterans. everyone in this chamber can agree that we have an obligation to care for those who risk their lives and make sacrifices for our freedoms. unfortunately there are too many veterans struggling to find work today and we're not doing enough to help. last year the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans stood at more than 7%. substantially higher than the national rate. and across all age groups there were more than 500,000 veterans out of work in 2014. this is unacceptable. congress must do more to meet its commitment to these brave men and women. that's why i encourage my colleagues to join me and more

than 40 of my colleagues in supporting the manufacturing jobs for veterans act. my bill will establish state-based manufacturing employment programs to provide skills training and manufacturing jobs for veterans and service members who are re-entering the work force. these pilot programs would support on the job d training opportunities -- on the job training opportunities, apprenticeships and certification classes for unploit veterans and will encourage -- for unploitvedrans and will encourage -- for unemployed veterans and will encourage manufactures to hire veterans. we have an opportunity to connect employers with a pipeline of skilled, capable workers. instead of voting on yet another partisan bill, we should be focused on real solutions that help the american people grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can take up this important bill and put our veterans back to work. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado reserves? mr. polis: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate that and i thank my good friend from north carolina who has already been stated on the floor is powering through today, standing strong for the values that i think really would not be expressed any differently except to say mr. speaker, that there is critical national interest here. . as we talk about these bills, yes it is -- sort of a groundhog day, i'll get to that in a moment seemingly because it seems like every time we from the republican side of the aisle want to talk about jobs and kitchen tables and making better improvements for life and getting rid of regulatory burden that would help or put controls on government, we are accused of wanting to spoil the

environment, kill trees, make flowers not bloom. whatever it may be, but the issue that's groundhog's day. if people want a true groundhog day analogy, here it is. when we want to put constraints on government from interfering and getting in the way of its proper role in helping business and helping our country do what it's supposed to do, or we are wanting to control through government this process and do so in a way that is detrimental to moms and dads who get up every day, and families, and single moms, and grandparents, and aunts and uncles, who just simply say we are not really as overly concerned about what you are doing in washington d.c., as i am concerned about what you're doing in hometown u.s.a. where i get up every morning. it's been said many times, mr. speaker, already this afternoon, and the issue is we are putting more burden and red tape on

america. no. this bill does, and these two bills that i speak to this rule and in favor of these two bills we are going, h.r. 50 and h.r. 527 is actually controlling government. instead of letting it get in the way and put unnecessary or quicker burdens on those again we are simply saying, whoa there is a proper place. there is a proper place for regulation. there is a proper place for a government limited role that our founders made. however, when that role steps over and begins to not only burden business, but instead of the man or woman who wants to get up in the morning and chase a dream of starting a new business, as i once did, when we started the scrapbook store, just to get a little bit of money, we were able to to so. others who want to get a loan, they have to go through the bureaucratic red tape is that now keeping them from starting the small business jobs, that employ people on a day-to-day level we are simply saying,

government it's time to take a breath. it's time to step back and see the impact that you are having. granted, some regulation is good. i'll give that to my democratic colleagues. but overregulation and burdensome regulation tears down our economy. so if that's the groundhog day argument for this week we want to have, i'll have it every day of the week. the members and people who watch this floor can see you have a party who wants to restrict business and jobs and government in such a way that it throttles the economy, or a party putting forth solutions and it will put forward as many times as we have to to remind the american people it is people and small business and jobs, everyday americans who create the jobs in this country not government. a business owner that i just recently spoke to had 10 employees. and he said he was getting ready to hire another employer. i said great. that's great. 10% growth. one more employee. he said but you got to understand, i'm having to hire

somebody and all they are going to be doing is filling out government paperwork. in other words, mr. speaker this is not someone who can go out and sell their widget or perform their service. this is someone who will sit in an office and simply make sure that they are complying with the big brother overreach of government. that's not job creation. that's burdensome on business. let's get them where they can create jobs and go out and sell their product do their services. or we have a bank in our area. talk about unfunded mandates, regulatory rule making. a bank in my area on their regular regulatory inspection, they were waiting for the bank examiners to come in and do their audit, and the problem they had was this, when the government showed up, they had more people coming to inspect their books an they had employees in their main office. and they complained the government agency complained that they did not have enough room for them to do their job. i'm sorry, mr. speaker. it's not up to small business to

make sure government can do their job. it's up to government to provide the atmosphere so small business can do their job. and that's what we are here about today. when we look at this, i urge my colleagues, don't get sidetracked on other issues, look at it for what it is. it is government getting the con strained, not the american people. it's protecting the american people from not good legislation, good litigation, it is the stuff that we need to work on. with that mr. speaker, i yield back my time stating these are good bills. let's pay it clearly. groundhog day is exactly what it is. more government or let's let the people live. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the gentlelady has any remainer speakers from north carolina. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves from cro. ms. foxx: i would like to yield one minute to our colleague from tennessee, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one min. mr. duncan: thank you very much. i certainly thank the gentlelady from north carolina for yielding me this time and for her good work on this legislation. i came to the floor today just to tell you a little bit about why i think this legislation is so very important. when i first came to congress many years ago, we had a democratic governor of tennessee and he was a fine governor and he would have the tennessee congressional delegation to the governor's mansion once a year and he would always start those meetings off every single year he would say, please no more unfunded mandates. please no more unfunded mandates. and he said that most of what the state was having to do now was -- were things that were required by the federal government. and it was causing the states

great financial difficulties. it was turning what was supposed to be a federal system that our founding fathers envisioned, it was turning it totally upside-down. this bill is a very reasonable, moderate, commonsense effort to make good on the unfunded mandates he reform act of 1995. all it's trying to do is ensure congress and federal agencies are fully informed about the impact of these federal mandates. and i urge my colleagues to support this very fine effort to make our system better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back of the the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. ms. foxx: if the gentleman from colorado is prepared to close, i am also. mr. polis: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: when you hear the gentleman from georgia or the gentlelady from north carolina talk about the intent behind these bills they sound great.

we all want a streamlined regulatory process and help make it more efficient. unfortunately when you look at what these bills do, they do the opposite. they add another tier to regulation. with big business having a new say in and above what small businesses and community members can do. they add red tape and legal requirements to regulation that don't exist now under statute. it seems to me like the opposite of trying to get input so our regulation's best affect the needs of each community. we have diverse needs across this country. my district is 62% federal land. so when decisions are made on federal land like a tribal management plan, and where there's going -- where people can bike and where they can hunt and fish, we want to have our say. the last thing we want is some out-of-state corporate interest determining in some process before we even get our say how these federal lands are used. it's absolutely critical that we

empower our communities. and this bill does the opposite in the name of adding more bureaucracy and red tape to the regulatory process presumably in an attempt to delay or make it less effective than it is. now, we value as americans the work that the clean water act does, the clean air act, the e.p.a., our essential protections around public health. they are very, very important. and i think our colleagues agree that they don't want to take those on head-on. but this bill would prevent some of those very agencies from doing the work that we have charged them to do. keeping the air clean, our water clean, and they need to be able to do that work and involve local impact in making sure that they do it in a way that protects american health and helps grow our economy and create jobs. we need to make sure that we don't have dumping of industrial

waste in the colorado river, poisoning millions of recreational users. we want to make sure that drilling sites don't use chemical compounds that are toxic or cause birth defects. we can and we must do better. the march of science moves forward. if there is thoughtful improvements to the regulatory process that will help reduce costs and reduce red tape rather than add red tape, we are happy to have those discussions. but unfortunately these bills fall short of that mark. that's why i oppose the rule and the bill. 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. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: my colleague, ms.delbeney offered a concept around a pilot program to encourage the hirings of veterans and manufacturing jobs. . the type of middle class agenda that the american public wants this congress to work on rather than one that cuts them out of

the very rule making that is designed to protect us americans from our health hazards and protect our public lands. i urge my colleagues to vote no. defeat the previous question. vote no on the rule and underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that republicans are not opposed to regulation. we just want regulations to be done right. these are modest reforms supported by republicans and democrats alike. some of these changes merely codify executive orders issued by the last two democrat presidents. mr. speaker, as proud as i am of this legislation, i realize its passage today won't be front page news. i understand that, quote,

lawmakers band together to close technical loopholes in umra isn't exactly a riveting headline. but what we are doing here is important. in congress we often focus our energy and attention on those issues that are most divisive and controversial and i understand that. there are real substantive disagreements between the two parties and among the american people. but congress must do the hard things. every now and then we get an opportunity to do something easy. this should be easy. reforms in this bill are low hanging fruit. some of my colleagues have suggestions for improvement and have offered amendments to these bills. great. i welcome their suggestions. those amendments will be discussed in an open and transparent process. not a single proposed amendment to either bill democrat or

republican has been excluded by this rule. i hope, mr. speaker, that my colleagues will join me until supporting these sensible bills that will enhance transparency -- that will enhance transparency accountability, and awareness of federal mandates and improve the federal government's treatment of small businesses. i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bills. i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. and has moved the previous question. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado requests a recorded vote. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 the chair are reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representates any use t csecaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercialurposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 1674 tsh-174. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption

of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has requested a recorded vote. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representis. any u othcled-ptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercialurposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243, the nays are 179. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: on roll call

vote 59, i inadvertently voted yes. i would like the record to reflect that i would have voted appropriately and properly no and i ask unanimous consent that this be placed in the appropriate place in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's statement will be appointed into the record. ms. jackson lee: thank you so very much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the house is

not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. will all members take their conversations off of the house floor. will all members please remove their conversations from the house floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five ethive days within which -- legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 50. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 78 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 50. the chair appoints the gentleman from nevada, mr. amodei, to preside over the

committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 50, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing federal mandates and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 30 minutes. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, this bill was referred to three other committees other than the oversight and government reform committee. we have been in contact with all of them, judiciary, budget and rules. and they have agreed to discharge the bill from their

committees so that we can consider the bill on the floor today. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the letters that reflect this understanding between oversight and government reform and the three other committees. the chair: the insertions will be covered by general leave. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman congress enacted the unfunded mandates reform act to, quote, curb the practice of imposing unfunded federal mandates on states and local governments, end quote. 20 years later we continue to see burdensome unfunded mandates being imposed on state, local and tribal governments as well as small businesses. despite high hopes, umra as it's often referred to, had little effect on agency rulemaking because of its limited coverage and its lack of accountability. in response, h.r. 50 proposes several key reforms to bring needed transparency to how government sets rules that protect our health, our safety, our welfare, as well as the environment. the chair: the committee will

be in order. the committee will be in order. please remove your conversations from the house floor. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: the legislation does this in several ways, mr. chairman. h.r. 50 requires agencies to consult with the private sector when directly impacted by a proposed rule. consult with the private sector. that's a great theme. i love the title of this. it does actually provide more information, more transparency and engages those people that are affected by these rules. requiring agency rule makers to consult with small business owners will bring needed perspective and common sense to how our rules are made. small businesses want government to fully understand how regulations impact their ability to create jobs and

promote economic growth. of course we need rules. of course there are going to be boundaries. but consulting with the private sector is something that has to happen. and government needs their perspective. the bill makes independent agencies subject to the unfunded mandates reform act. also known as umra. there are hundreds of federal independent agencies charged with handling responsibilities such as managing workplace safety and protecting our forests. it is important these entities are accountable to the public when establishing a new rule. h.r. 50 ensures that that will happen. h.r. 50 requires an umra analysis for all final rules. under current law, an agency can forego an umra analysis by avoiding a notice of proposed rulemaking. g.a.o. reports that 35% of major rules are issued without of notice of proposed rulemaking, making it difficult for the public to comment. in fiscal year 2014, the

administration estimated the annual cost of major regulations between $57 billion ads 84 billion. we must have a better understanding of those costs before passing them on to state, local and tribal governments, as well as the public sector. or the private sector. the bill strengthens congressional oversight by requiring agencies to look back at specific regulations when requested by congress. before a rule is tested, it's difficult to understand its consequences. including its costs and its benefits. president obama supported retrospective reviews of regulations by issuing an executive order requiring agencies to periodically review significant regulations in executive order 13563 in january 2011. these retrospective reviews resulted in regulations that are morive and less burdensome in achieving their objectives.

retrospective analysis can and should inform future rules. h.r. 50 allows judicial review when agencies fail to fully consider the least costly or least burdensome alternative rule. the bill allows the judicial branch to place a stay on rules when agencies fail to complete their required umra anal sills. this provides an important check -- anal sills. this provides an important check on the executive branch and this codifies the practice of estimating the true cost of a federal mandate. when a federal mandate is proposed, c.b.o. ensures its cost estimates include lost profits, cost passed on to consumers and behavioral changes as a result of a federal mandate. when enacted, umra created aven important step to inform congress of the potential burdens of regulatory mandates on both governments and the private sector. this way congress can weigh any potential benefits as well as any potential burdens. by updating this law, we can help ensure that all parties,

from government entities to small businesses, understand the true costs of prospective mandates. i commend dr. foxx from north carolina. she's poured her heart and soul into this she believes passionately in this. her leadership on this bill has brought it to this point today. and when successfully passed in the house with bipartisan support, it has passed three times with bipartisan support in this house. but it is necessary to bring it up again and to share this with the new senate that is now in place. so i would encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 50. it is good, it is commonsense, it is good for this nation it enjoys bipartisan support. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 50, the unfunded mandates information and transparency

act. this legislation may be well intended, but it would have unintended consequences that would make the government less efficient and less effective. i say -- said just four months ago when the house considered a package of special interest bills including this one. i said then that the republican leadership in the house cannot fool the american people by passing the same bad bills over and over again. yet mr. chairman, here we go again. yesterday the house voted to repeal the affordable care act for the 56th time. today we are considering an ty regulatory bill -- anti-regulatory bill the house has considered three times before. tomorrow we will consider another anti-regulatory bill the house has also passed before. h.r. 50, the bill we are considering today, would add red tape to the rulemaking process in an effort to slow

down or halt agency rules. one thing that is different this time around is that the congressional budget office estimated that h.r. 50, as reported, would increase direct spending by $18 million over the next 10 years. c.b.o. estimates that this increase would primarily impact the consumer financial protection bureau. . a bureau established to protect our constituents. the majority inserted a last-minute provision last night after the rules committee meeting to address this problem. the majority's fix however, does nothing to reduce the costs of the bill. the majority instead inserted language that cut the consumer financial protection budget by $36 million in fiscal year 2016. cut cfpb's budget by $36 million

while also requiring the agency to comply with signature new requirements is absurd. on saturday, the huffington post published an article titled i quote, congress revised gingrich-era law to thwart obama, end of quote. the article said, quote, the republicans in congress aim to revamp an anti-regulatory law from the newt gingrich era in an effort to paralyze new financial, environmental, and labor rules with a never-ending string of court challenges. end of quote. the unfunded mandates reform act was enacted as a part of newt gingrich's contract with america. even in the context of the extreme agenda of the contract with america, congress included several limitations in the unfunded mandates reform act. this bill would repeal those

limitations. for example under this bill agencies would be required to consult with regulated industries on proposed rules before they are even made public. for example, if a consumer financial protection bureau planned to propose a new rule to protect consumers from abusive mortgage practices, banks would get advance access to the rule. and the opportunity to say things before our constituents the consumers. i believe that businesses should have the opportunity to provide comments on he proposed rules. but they should do it through the normal public comment process just like other stakeholders. h.r. 50 would also expand judicial review under the unfunded mandates reform act. that stat tearly prohibits courts from using its requirements to delay or invalidate a rule.

this bill eliminates that restriction which would allow regulated industries to use the law to slow down rule makings. this bill also would put independent agencies if jeopardy of political interference. the unfunded mandates reform act currently exempts independent agencies from its reporting requirements. the bill removes that exemption. that would mean that the independent regulatory agencies like the security exchanges commission, and consumer financial protection bureau, would have to submit their rules to the office of management and budget for review. which could undermine their independence. section 12 of the bill would require an agency to perform retrospective review including additional cost benefit analysis of any existing rules if requested by the chairman or ranking minority member of a committee.

and it is interesting that we always talk being able to predict what is going to go on in the business world. this certainly would add a high level of unpredictibility. i will offer an amendment at the appropriate time to strike that provision. these flaws are reason enough to oppose this bill. the most important reason is that we rely on agency rule makings to protect our children protect our workers, protect our economy, and protect our constituents. the folks who sent us here. that is why the coalition for sensible safeguards, a group of more than 150 good government labor, scientific, faith, and community organizations sent a letter to the oversight committee opposing this bill. here's what the letter said, and i quote, the costs of deregulation should be obvious by now. the wall street economic collapse, various food and

productivity recalls and numerous disasters including the recent dan river coal spill in north carolina and the freedom industry's chemical spill in west virginia demonstrate the need for regulatory system that protects the public not corporate interests. congress should be moving forward to protect the public from harm. not rolling back the clock and weakening important safeguards. yesterday, the white house entered a statement opposing this bill. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. million chaffetz: at this time i had -- mr. chaffetz: at this time i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx, the sponsor of this bill. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding time and the leadership he has provided in getting this bill passed out of the oversight

and government reform committee. mr. speaker, we are going to probably have to say this many times today but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to make this an anti-regulation bill. we are not opposed to regulations on our side of the aisle. we are in favor of commonsense rules. mr. speaker, each year washington imposes thousands of pages of rules and regulations on america's private sector employers as well as state and local governments. buried in those pages are costly federal mandates that make it harder for businesses to hire and cash strapped cities to serve their citizens. i can testify to the difficulty of balancing the state's budget when there are dozens of complicated mostly unfunded federal mandates that must be taken into account. as a former small business owner i understand first hand

the concerns that job creators have about how confusing rules affect their ability to conduct business and provide jobs and opportunities to their employees. that's why i introduced h.r. 50 the unfunded mandates information and transparency act which we call umeda and i'm proud to see it brought before the house for consideration. the bill builds upon the bipartisan 1995 unfunded mandate's reform act, also known as umra, and will ensure awareness of public disclosure of the costs in dollars and jobs that federal dictates pose to the economy and local governments. h.r. 50 does not seek to prevent the federal government from regulating, rather it seeks to ensure its regulations are deliberative and economically defensible. asking regulators to consider authoring and understand the cost of a rule, in addition to its benefits, should not be

controversial. it's just plain common sense. regulators and legislators should know exactly what they are asking the american people to pay, and whether the cost of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat. and no government body on purpose or accidentally should skirt public scrutiny when jobs and scarce resources are at stake. in the nearly 20 years since umra's passage, weaknesses in the law have been revealed. weaknesses that some government agencies and independent regulatory bodies have exploited. umita makes regulatory agencies subject to umra's requirements ending a two-tier system that allowed regulations to be implemented without the required consideration, scrutiny, or public input. h.r. 50 recognizes that the federal government's reach extends well beyond the taxes it collects and money it spends. regulations can advance government initiatives without

using tax dollars. rather than counting expenses for new programs, the government can require the private sector as well as state and local governments to pay for federal initiatives through compliance costs. this bill shines much needed light on the mercury regulatory process and ensures i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this commonsense, bipartisan bill, and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on government operations, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman.

i thank the distinguished gentleman from maryland. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 50, the unfunded mandates information and transparency act. this act boasts an orr wellian -- orwellian title that attempts deception of the public into believing that it's simply an innocuous attempt to enhance transparency for the public at state and local governments, while making the true naturer this -- nature of this act, is an assault on public health, safety, and environmental protections. this bill is simply an effort to throw a wrench into the rule making process. ensuring that private industry is provided privileges and rights above any other stakeholders in the process. in many respects, h.r. 50 represents the mitt romney principle on steroids. it appears in the minds of some of my colleagues not only is it a fact that corporations are people my friend, but under this measure they appear to be embracing a treats corporations

better than people. the long-standing principle is i'll never defend the indefensible. this bill provides private corporation was an unfair consultation over every other stakeholder in the regulatory process, and that's indefensible. under this bill, federal agencies would be required to consult with private industry quote, before issuance of notice of proposed rule making. yet it does not afford that same level of protection or consultation to average citizens consumers or anybody else who relies on agency rules to preserve and protect their health, welfare, and safety. there's no justification for enacting an ir rational statutory framework that requires the federal government to consult with private firms and nobody else, such as large agribusiness, for example, prior to proposing a rule that could have an impact on that company, yet does not require such consultation on public health with public health experts.

i cannot defend the regulatory framework that would provide big oil companies a guaranteed right to weigh in before any drilling regulation is promulgated to protect the public from big oil spills such as one we experienced a few years ago. to be clear, i strongly support the right of industry to have its voice and to have the opportunity to provide comments of proposed rules. this fosters more informed and high quality rule making, benefiting business and society. that's why our current administrative procedures mandate that a public comment period be provided prior to the adoption of such rules. equally concerning, h.r. 50 would also undermine independent regulatory agencies. it's not clear how eliminating the independence of agencies, such as the consumer product safety commission by empowering administrations to shaping the rules before they issued them

would in any way address unfunded mandates. the bottom line -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. million connolly: i ask the gentleman for 30 more seconds. mr. cummings: i grant 30 seconds. the chair: 30 seconds. mr. connolly: a well reasoned agency rule may have our air cleaner to breathe, water safer to drink and products safer to use. that's a good formula and he we should preserve it. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i recognize myself for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: it would be inaccurate, inappropriate to suggest that this bill bypass individuals. to the contrary the bill says and impacted parties within the private sector. the definition of private sector under umra, the term quote, private sector, means all persons or entities in the united states including individuals. so any insertion on this floor that this gives unilateral

priority to the individual corporations and bypass the individuals, we are trying to give people affected by this law -- these rules, we are trying to give them the opportunity to be heard. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking member. for allowing me time. i rise today to strongly oppose h.r. 50, i consider it a misguided bill that will cost american consumers at least $18 million over the next 10 years. while making it easier for bad actors in certain industries to continue their abusive practices as they attempt to stone wall appropriate regulation.

make no mistake, h.r. 50 is a frontal assault on the nation's health safe, and environmental protections. and it would erect new barriers to give selected industries a built-in advantage to evade or eliminate vital rules that protect the american people. . for instance this bill would require agencies to consult with private sector entities as early as possible before the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking continue through the final rule stage and be integrated explicitly into the rulemaking process. now, i agree that federal agencies should consult with regulated industries regarding proposed rules, but they should not receive an insider

prewired advantage in the regulating and rulemaking process over other stakeholders. h.r. 50 would also expand judicial review under umra and would allow a court to review the inadequacy or failure of an agency to prepare a written statement under umra. umra currently prohibits courts from using the law to stay and validate or otherwise affect an agency's rules. h.r. 50 would eliminate this prohibition. i thought the majority strongly opposed judicial activism, but perhaps that only applies to protecting voting rights. and we don't have to choose between protecting the health, well fair and safety of americans -- welfare and safety of americans and promoting economic growth, job creation

and innovation we can do both. h.r. 50 advances neither these worthy goals, and that is why i urge my colleagues to reject this deeply flawed act that will stack to get -- stack the deck against american consumers. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves, and the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. hice: thank you, mr. speaker and i thank the gentleman for yielding and his time. i rise in strong support of h.r. 50, the unfunded mandates information and transparency act. the alarming growth of our federal government in the last several decades has come at an incredible cost. this is largely due to lax reporting requirements and as a

result, the american people have largely been left in the dark as to the true cost of this unprecedented growth. for example we all know that often the federal government imposes mandates, be it upon the private sector, local or state governments and oftentimes this is without any clearly disclosed cost or impact of those mandates. mr. speaker h.r. 50 will make significant strides to addressing this looming problem by enacting more strict and clearly defined requirements about how and when agencies need to disclose the cost of these federal mandates. therefore, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, three minutes.

the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 50, and with all due respect to my friend from utah -- and i do respect him -- i know he didn't write this bill but there's a common practice here in congress that you name the bill in a way that describes the opposite of what it will actually do. now, this is supposed to be an accountability bill, but it ought -- this bill ought to be named the government gridlock act, because that's what it will introduce. and while i certainly respect everyone's opinion and position against big government i certainly understand that. you can be against intrusive government i understand that. but you can't be against

functioning government, and that's what this bill accomplishes. this bill as the gentleman did point out, it does allow individual taxpayers to sue. so mr. gilhooly and mrs. gilhooly can sue. so can others. this bill makes the financial ability to sustain a legal challenge as the -- as the litmus test on how much justice you get under this bill. even though congress has the ability to pass laws and direct regulators to come up with regulations, large well-financed banks and industry, like the oil industry, will be able to undo the direction of congress by

proffering legal challenges with enormous resources to stop those laws from coming into effect. so a good example is the financial services industry where we, under dodd-frank have directed that there be 300 separate rules developed to deal with the problems created by the crisis in 2008. that crisis cost us $20 trillion. $20 trillion to the american economy. and yet under this law in order to prevent big banks from taking those reckless gambles, we would have to force the regulators to show that the reduction in cost to the american taxpayer justified the regulation against wall street. it misses the point. we are trying to bifurcate the

risk created by wall street from the taxpayers' requirement to bail them out. this bill ignores that reality. i think we all should oppose it and i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank you, the chairman for his leadership on this bill and bringing it through regular order. we continue to hear that around here, and yet this particular bill -- before the gentleman from massachusetts leaves, i think it's important that we address this because what happens here is, as the gentleman would indicate, he's making this out to be all about big banks. it's really about the small business folks and truly about

the municipalities. so i want to read a few excerpts from the resolution that comes from his home state from massachusetts because they got together and they said this is a real problem. it says, whereas the federal government has imposed additional requirements based on incomplete scientific analysis and review on the cities and towns of massachusetts. you know, they want in this resolution, mr. speaker, it talks about going further at a minimum what we should do is provide quote a fiscal note included as part of any such proposal. so it's the towns and the counties across the country. and yes, indeed, from the gentleman, my esteemed friend from massachusetts, a resolution from his state that talks about the problems we have with unfunded mandates. mr. speaker, over 850 major

pieces of regulation with impacts of over $100 million apiece have failed to basic principle and test. 75% of them never get the analysis that we should be doing as a federal government. we have a responsibility, a responsibility to the local towns and governments but also a responsibility mr. speaker, to farmers. i left a hearing today with the e.p.a. and an unfunded mandate and who are they consulting with? the department of agriculture. not farmers from across this great country. they're talking to other bureaucrats. it's time that we bring the private sector in, and i think it's time that we stand alongside them and i thank the chairman for his leadership. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves, and the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield mrs. lawrence from michigan two minutes, a new member of our committee. the chair: the gentlelady from

michigan is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lawrence: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 50, the unfunded mandates information and transparency act. although the intent of this legislation is to no doubt provide additional safeguards it does in fact add an additional level of bureaucracy. it appears to be a good bill. as a former mayor, i fought to ensure that my city and other cities were not unduly impacted by unfunded federal mandates. in michigan we worked cooperatively with our federal counterparts on proposed regulations that would generate obligations on local governments. in fact as a local government official, i supported the unfunded mandate reform act as it was the result of multiple years of efforts by our state and local government officials

to control the burden of many unfunded federal mandates. along with the consequences i previously mentioned this bill also grants corporations special access to information, an opportunity to submit feedback to an agency before a rule is even proposed. additionally, the legislation would shut the american people out of this early review. the bill would also require agencies to perform retrospective analysis at the request of any chairman or ranking minority member of any standing or select committee of the house or the senate. the bill neither improves or streamlines the regulatory process. it expands agency roles and interjects politics into the process. the office of management and budget is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the unfunded mandates

information and transparency act. it expands o.m.b.'s role and requires them to guarantee that each agency complies with the act's requirement. independent regulatory agencies will then have to spend -- mr. cummings: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. lawrence: to send their rulemaking process to o.m.b. the existing act express -- prohibits the states to validate the agency. i ask that we vote no for this act and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves and the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, mr. mccarthy of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know mr. speaker there are many parts of government that like to act in secrecy. in particular, many agencies like to hide the true costs of their regulations to the american people. after all, it's easier to add more pages to the federal registry if nobody is sure exactly what the price tag is. but that's not the way our democracy should work. for government to work, it needs to be accountable to the people. but to be accountable to the people, government needs to be honest and open with what it is doing. washington needs reform, and a good place to start is to make sure that people know the true cost of what washington is doing. no gimmicks, no hidden fees. that is why i support representative foxx's bill which demands transparency and unfunded mandates.

you know mr. speaker, this bill says a simple thing. it says we trust the people. it says if the bureaucracy is afraid of telling the people how much a regulation costs then it shouldn't impose the regulation. and if bureaucracy isn't following the rules and giving the people the information they need, this bill allows the courts to review the agency, no more hiding. the people have the right to know as much as possible, and washington has an obligation to tell them. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time, and the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i just want to remind the gentleman that -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. cummings: remind the gentleman before he leaves the chamber that there is truth here, and the truth is that c.b.o. has already estimated that this bill will cost some

$18 million. there's also truth here with regard to what has happened with regard to the consumer financial protection bureau, the very bureau that this congress established to protect our consumers on a day-to-day basis, losing some $36 million. that's the transparency. and so with that i'll grant two minutes to the gentlelady. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. . >> thank you for this opportunity to speak. i rise today also in opposition to h.r. 50, the misleadingly named unfunded mandate information and transparency act of 2015, which passed out of the oversight and government reform committee on a strictly partisan vote. this bill neither improves nor streamlines the regulatory process. instead this ill-conceived bill is an assault on consumer protections gives private industry and unfair advantage to

weigh if on rules, and erects new unnecessary barriers if the regulatory process. 50 would require agencies to provide the private sector with an unfair advantaged to influence proposed regulations. mrs. coleman: the importance of this bill claim that it creates parity between the private and public sentors, but that is not true. what it does is provide the private sector with a sneak peek of proposed rules before they are even made public. this bill propels regulative private sector entities to the front of the line while pushing the consumers, these laws are designed to protect to the back of the line. it further gums up the regulatory process by allowing opponents to delay or invalidate rules through litigation. the existing unfunded mandate reform act of 1995 prohibits courts from using the law, to stay enjoin, invalidate or otherwise affect an agency rule. 50 would fundamentally change that law by eliminating this

prohibition hitting regulated industries the ability to use -- to abuse this. wall street banks could take agencies to court over dodd-frank consumer protection rules that have yet to be finalized. most americans, most of my constituents that i represent, simply do not have the means to hire lawyers to sue federal agencies that they are dissatisfied with a federal regulation, but large corporations do. 50 would give corporations the ability to sue and stall regulations they view as favorable -- unfavorable. by unnecessarily layering an additional burdensome judicial review and giving private industry an unfair advantage this bill shows it is not working for the consumers but only working for the chosen few. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: may i inquire the time left on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from utah has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from maryland,

9 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. mr. walker: thank you, mr. chairman. every day small businesses and local governments are weighed down by washington's numerous regular laces. 50, the unfunded mandates information and transparency act, acts to curb the constant rules and regulations that washington continue to impose on the american people. this law builds and improves the bipartisan legislation the unfunded mandates reform asket 1995 which promotes transparent decisionmaking and curb unfunded federal mandates. however, due to loopholes and exemption umra has failed to keep unfunded mandates off the backs of local governments and taxpayers. i would like to thank congresswoman faction for introducing this bipartisan -- foxx for introducing this

bipartisan legislation to close these gaps, hold washington accountable, and better protect our fellow americans. importantly, this bill will do three things. one, will close loopholes that allow agencies and independent regulators to forgo umra analysis. it enables stakeholders to engage federal agencies before unfunded mandates are implemented. and three, it holds regulators accountable through the courts and congressional oversight. i'm reminded every day we were elected to bring change to washington. and this reform is exactly what needs to be sent to the president's desk. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentlelady from the district of columbia ms. norton, three minutes. ms. norton: the gentlelady from the north carolina second -- the chair: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: i thank my good friend from maryland for yielding me this time. mr. speaker this bill has a lot of chutzpah, even for a

pro-business majority. the point of the review and comments regulatory process to hear from everybody, to pull everybody into the process. i have experienced how this process worked when i chaired the equal employment opportunity commission. in order to make sure i heard from everyone, i took a process which issued guidelines which did not come under the administrative procedure act and put it under the administrative procedure act to make sure i heard from everyone. in a real sense i knew i thought i knew what the public wanted because i was a civil rights lawyer. i was particularly interested in whether the reforms i was instituting would work in practice. so i was more interested in a real sense in what the business

community said. and i must tell you, mr. speaker in these processes, the business community, small and large, dwarfs the public. and the amount of comment that agency heads received. this bill breaks a cardinal rule by excluding of all people, the public, while industry gets an advance look at a bill. understand, it is the industry that is being regulated that we are talking about. the industry that has the high cost lobbyists, high cost lawyers that the public does not have. so what is the point here mr. speaker? it's clear. the point is to get industry in on writing the bill itself. and writing it at that stage before the public even gets to

know what the bill is. this is not a pit in favor of the -- tilt in favor of the objects of negotiation, it's a slide in their favor. if the point is the usual bipartisan point, to help small businesses, which by the way is already a stakeholder, along with other businesses why pit small businesses against small children and small mortgage holders and small i.t. users? another extraordinary thing i see in this bill is that the court hating majority in this bill falls in love with the judiciary by inviting litigation before the rule is final. the courts will just love that. if we want to do so why do so

with a bill that on top of everything else adds $18 million over 10 years -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. norton: another minute? the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. norton: $18 million that this majority certainly will not appropriate. small business is and always has been a bipartisan concern. we have many more of them in our districts than we have large business. that's not who will come to consult. it is the global multinationals who are applauding this bill as we speak. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i would like to point to the bill because it keeps getting repeated on this floor it doesn't include the public. it doesn't include individuals. that's just not true. page 12 of the bill agencies shall to the extent practical seek out the views of state,

local, and tribal governments, and impacted parties within the private sector. definition of private sector, the term private sector means all persons or entities in the united states including individuals. it sounds like a good rhetorical point to keep saying we are leaving out the little guy, we are leaving out the public. it does include the public. it does include the individuals. when these unfunded mandates are placed upon them this bill would make sure that they are at least asked about it. that's what we are seeking. at this time i'd like to recognize for one minute the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the chair: the gentleman fromed in north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. meadows: i thank you, mr. speaker. the chairman points out very clearly that indeed the definition of private sector includes individuals. i would also like to go out further and talk about -- we are talking about small businesses and how they are -- they are not supported in this. it's troubling because if that were the case, the national

federation of independent businesses who represent thousands and thousands of small businesses, or the small business and entrepreneurship council, which does the same, would not be endorsing this piece of legislation. so, mr. speaker, i want to make sure that the record is corrected with regards to the $18 million. that was cleared up in rules yesterday. the committee was made aware of it and despite the legislation being identical to the last congress' bill, the c.b.o. scored it as having a direct spending cost. but this was partly because the bureau of consumer financial, cfpb, doesn't have the authority to collect the fees. so we have already addressed that, mr. speaker. i want to make sure we cleared up the record. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield the gentlelady -- ranking member of the financial services committee, ms. waters two

minutes. the chair: how many minutes? mr. cummings: two. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. i appreciate the time that's been allotted to me, thank you very much, mr. cummings. i rise to oppose h.r. 50 an anti-consumer deregulatory bill that would stop rule making by our nation's financial overseers dead in its tracks. in 2008 we witnessed the worst financial crisis since 1929, which halted lending to small businesses, left millions without a home, and pushed countless americans into personal bankruptcy and ruin. afterwards, my colleagues and i in congress worked diligently to put in place serious and comprehensive safeguards to prevent another collapse. nevertheless, today house republicans are suffering from selective amnesia when they push this legislation to undo financial reform. indeed, this bill, 50, places significant administrative hurdles on our regulators like the consumer financial protection bureau and securities and exchange commission.

certain provisions require our regulators, who are tasked with protecting consumers an investors torques conduct onerous industry friendly, cost benefit analysis and submit their rules for review to the office of management and budget. this hurts their ability to act independently and in the best interest of the public. in addition this bill would harm special interest -- arm special interest with a time tested weapon to delay and kill reform. the opportunity to challenge our cash strapped regulators in court on every rule. but this is the ultimate point of the bill. to make regulating everything from securities, fraud, payday loans credit cards, insider trading and derivatives that much harder. most concerning is that republicans want to pay for the cost of their new burdens by depriving the one regulator charged with protecting our nation's consumers of tens of millions of dollars. mr. chairman, this is just the latest in a never-ending effort to unravel the important

protections for consumers and taxpayers this congress put in place following the worst crisis in a generation. with our economy still recovering from the $1 trillion financial crisis, with families in my own district and probably yours, still struggling -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. waters: thank you very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i'd like to make mr. cummings aware that i have no further speakers. i am prepared to close. i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield mr. kildee two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kildee: i thank my friend for yielding. i want to echo the comments of ranking member waters and the member of the financial services committee. i'm particularly concerned with the direction that this bill takes us. at a time when on one hand many of my colleagues have criticized the agency's charged with implegs -- i-plemation of

important regulatory reforms such as dodd-frank, charging those agencies with not bringing forth rules in a timely fashion. and then at the same time reduces through the budget process the necessary resources to provide those agencies with the tools that they need to move forward on the rule making process and now this. yet another i think, effort to create another cumbersome step in the process of developing rules intended to implement legislation that was passed here by the united states congress. law that is on the books. the rule making process already includes a very logical progression of steps, which allows for a comprehensive and all inclusive comment period under the administrative procedures act that allows the kind of input, substantive input, that is specific to the

rules being proposed to be provided, to be considered, to modify proposed rules, and then to move forward in an orderly process. the other concern that i have is that there's language that is troublesome to me in terms of the way cost benefit analyses would be conducted and considered. . industry specific cost and benefits, we lose the fact that many of the costs are not borne by those in the industry but those consumers that bear the brunt of their tactics. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. the gentleman from maryland has two minutes. mr. cummings: very well. mr. speaker, i just want to be clear that clearly, you know,

many things concern me about this legislation. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the remainder of the time. mr. cummings: and i don't think -- we need to be very careful about this. we have a situation here where this is clearly an effort to give big business an advantage. all the speakers on our side have talked to that. you know, we can go around saying we don't need regulations but regulations are very, very important. this president has done a lot with regard to addressing the issue of regulations. but there's something else that's happening here that really bothers me. there was a tremendous effort by the other side when we were trying to get the consumer protection bureau bill passed after seeing our constituents abused over and over again and to bring about an agency that would bring them some type of protection. and here we are an agency that already needs money taking

away from that agency the very agency that is there to help our constituents. that concerns me. the other thing that concerns me is that we have an extra layer here. it makes it difficult now with regard to rulemaking. and then to have the courts to have the ability to delay and basically take away rules unprecedented, that is something that even newt gingrich didn't do. and so we need to look at what we're doing and bring a sense of balance, and the other side will say that balance is brought about because private industry is being involved in the process. well, they really do have a tremendous advantage because as ms. norton said, they're the ones that have the lawyers, they're the ones that have the big money, they're the ones now

that will be able to come in before the regulations are even formulated and have their say while the public won't be in that kind of position. so let's not kid ourselves. we are putting our constituents at a decided disadvantage no matter how you look at it and this is a triumph for big business. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, the one that's in the power position the one that's got the resources is the government. the government is the one that's got all the cards. all we're asking for is to allow input from individuals small businesses, big businesses. if you're going to be affected, isn't it common sense to suggest that maybe they should talk to the people that they're going to put this mandate on? let's have a discussion a dialogue get some input from them. i mean, the name of this bill is very, very accurate, unfunded mandates information and transparency act.

what are we afraid of? asking the question, how are you going to be impacted, what's this going to do to the economy? what i hear from my constituents -- and i heard them from outside utah's third congressional district is, the government comes in with the big heavy hand and no opportunity. it's just laid upon them. so i appreciate dr. foxx and what she's doing. we also hear from state and local and tribal governments, from small businesses, business organizations that are in support of this bill. in fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of major regulations between $57 billion and $84 billion. there's room. there is appropriate use of regulations, to suggest that we're opposed to all regulations is irresponsible. i think there are good regulations that are in place that make our country better but there needs to be a process and a communication and input

from individuals that are affected by these regulations. we've got to understand the cost and how we're passing these unfunded mandates onto state and local governments. this is an important part of the process, so updating this law we can help ensure that all parties from government entities to small businesses to individuals, understand the true costs of the perspective mandates. and this bill, which successfully passes in the house again i applaud dr. foxx from north carolina, who is the prime sponsor of this for moving this legislation. i would urge my colleagues a yea vote on h.r. 50. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be credit for amendment under the five-minute rule. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the tks of rules committee print is 14-4, modified by the amendment printed in part b of house

report 114-14 is adopted. the bill as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part c of the report. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall be subject to an amendment -- shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 114-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. reed: mr. chairman, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 114-14 offered by mr.

reed of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 78, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. reed: mr. chairman, private property rights are fundamental to our liberties and freedom as american citizens. these rights are recognized in the fifth amendment to our united states constitution. the overreaching actions from government on all levels, in particular here today, the federal government and its agencies, is infringing on these rights by limiting property use and impacting property values. this is not right and we must address this issue. my amendment is simple and it is fair. the amendment will require agencies to assess the impact of their governmental actions on private property including

the use and value of that private property. mr. chairman, this will ensure fairness and transparency. agencies will have to recognize the effects their government action will have on private property once this amendment is approved. mr. chairman, i have heard from constituents in my district and from across america that this government needs to be held in check and in particular when it comes to our fundamental freedoms such as private property rights. and at this point in time, mr. chairman, i would like to yield one minute to the chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, chairman chaffetz. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i appreciate congressman reed and what he's trying to do here. i think this makes a lot of sense. his amendment asks agencies to consider the effects of regulatory action upon private property owners. the amendment provides input from private sector entities and taxpayers affected by

regulations. farms and other types of things, public land issues that we deal with particularly out west but across the nation. federal regulators should consider the effects of any regulation on private property owners. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i re-. the chair: reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: does the gentleman from maryland claim time in opposition to the amendment? mr. cummings: yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. chairman, i -- you know, i'm not really going to oppose this amendment. this amendment would add a requirement to the agencies that evaluate the impact the rule on private property owners. i do not subject to this -- object to this requirement. the problem is this amendment requires one more requirement to the layers of red tape this bill already adds to the rulemaking process. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york.

mr. reed: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the ranking member and i thank the chairman for their lack of opposition and suprtf is amendment. and in closing, mr. chairman, i would just say as we care about american citizens across the country, we must stand with them and we must support their fundamental freedoms that is represented in our constitution. and that is what this amendment will do. it is a simple concise amendment that will just recognize that government for once and for all must recognize that it is impacting private property rights in america with its actions and quantify that impact when it comes to the use and value of their private property. and with that i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill and at this point in time i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having been yielded back the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 114-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. cummings: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. theirtle l designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed part c of house report 114-14 offered by mr. cummings of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 78, the gentleman from maryland mr. cummings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. my amendment strikes section 12 of the bill. section 12 would require an agency to perform a retrospective analysis of any existing rule anytime a committee chairman or ranking member asks for it. under this section, any one of nearly 100 members of congress

could tie an agency up in knots forcing review -- after review of any existing rule. i ask the nonpartisan congressional research service to analyze the constitutionality of this section. c.r.s. provided my staff with a memo that found that section 12 of h.r. 50 raises serious constitutional questions. c.r.s. evaluated the impact of the supreme court decision in i.n.s. vs. chada. in that case, the court held that congress can exercise its legislative authority only through bicameral passage of legislation that is then presented to the president. c.r.s. evaluated whether giving an individual member of congress the authority to demand agency action would violate that requirement. here's what c.r.s. found, and i quote -- it could be argued that in viewing certain members

with the authority to demand that an agency prepare a report under section 12 it is an action of sufficient legislative character in effect, asks to trigger bicameralism and presentment requirements under article 1 end of quote. c.r.s. also found there, and i quote, tenable argument that provisions of section 12 raised constitutional concerns of magna tude restrictions in chada. congress has the legitimate interest in conducting oversight over agency actions. it is appropriate for house committees to request information about agency rules and how they can be improved. but committees already have the opportunity to conduct that type of oversight. we don't need to require in legislation that an agency conduct an entirely new cost-benefit analysis

potentially every rule on the books at the whim of an individual member of congress. c.r.s. notes that congress could conduct these reviews as part of the oversight prerogative. c.r.s. goes on to note, however, that if these reviews were part of congressional oversight rather than an exercise of legislative authority they would, quote, leave unresolved questions regarding congressional oversight authority, end of quote. these questions are significant enough to warrant stripping this section from the bill. in addition, section 12 would threaten the ability of agencies to carry out their missions. the more time an agency spends responding to demand for rule reviews the less time it is spending performing the work it is supposed to be doing. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from utah, for what purpose do you seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i thank the chairman. a cost-benefit analysis prior to the implementation of a regulation requires a number of assumptions that make inaccurate -- an accurate analysis difficult, if not impossible. it allows chairmen and ranking members to ask for retroactive reviews of specific regulations. i think there needs to be a degree of deference in respect to the fact that there are committee members on both sides of the aisle, not just based on some whim, i think it's offense to suggest that it's just a wimscal thing. these retrospective reviews better clarify the true costs of regulations. even president obama, even president obama supports retrospective reviews and issued an executive order requiring agencies to conduct them. more importantly, retrospective reviews work. in april of 2014, the g.a.o.

issued a report on retrospective reviews at 22 executive agencies. that report found that more than 90% of retrospective regulation reviews led to agencies to revise, clarify or eliminate regulation text. 90%. however, the pace of retrospective review is much slower than planned. in the 22 agencies reviewed by the g.a.o., had plans to conduct more than 650 retrospeckive reviews, but had only completed 246 of them as of august of 2013. as you can see, the agencies are already doing this work. it's good to go back and review. we shouldn't be afraid of that. we should encourage it. this provision in the bill simply allows congress to work with agencies to prioritize regulatory areas most important to the american taxpayer. we need to maintain the ability to make such requests and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i inquire as

to how much time we have on this side? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has two minutes. mr. cummings: i yield one minute to mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i thank the chair and i thank my friend. i think we do have something to be concerned about with this provision of the bill and i rise enthusiastically to support mr. cummings' amendment. he has raised serious issues about the constitutional nature of this provision, which could take down the whole bill. i was working in the united states senate at the time of the rendering by the supreme court and it's crystal clear. and it's crystal clear to me that this retrospective provision, empowering congress tantamount to a legislative veto, but we don't call it that is an encroachment on executive authority and will be so found by courts. and therefore i think it is prudent by this body to adopt the cummings amendment and clear that constitutional cloud that hangs over h.r. 50. with that i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves his time and the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: that's some good creative thinking right there. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: the -- mr. chairman one of the things we have to keep in mind, the president is the president. you're talking about 100 members of congress as opposed to the president. and the president has done this and you, the chairman admits, that they've already -- they're already behind. so now what we're going to do is bring in a whole new 100 people at a whim to to say we don't like something and let's pull it back. no. i think we're better than that. and i think it does have constitutional problems. i think enough is being done and i'm glad to hear somebody giving the president some

credit for something. in fact, he has been most aggressive in this area. i don't think this provision is needed and i would urge members to vote in favor of my amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time and the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: sorry, did the gentleman yield back? mr. cummings: do i have any time? the chair: no. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i want to highlight again that when there was a report done by the g.a.o., they found that 90% of retrospective regulation reviews led to agencies to revise, clarify ear eliminate regulatory text -- or eliminate regulatory text. all this does is ask for a report it. doesn't repeal it it's not going to slow it down. what it does is ask for a report. that's an important process to go through. and when we have gone through it in the past 90% of the

time, according to the g.a.o., it has led to revisions that are important. it's very difficult to understand what's going to happen on the front end. all we're asking for in this bill is, let's consult with the individuals, the property owners, others that are affected, and then if we need to report and we're going to limit that to chairmen and ranking members, that's an appropriate thing to do. what are we afraid of? we're just trying to get transparency to the issue and to be able to highlight this. i worry, when you talk about the numbers of reviews and how far behind, it just shows the massive numbers of regulations that go through this process. we should be able to review those. there are real americans that are affected by this every day. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. and with that i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having been yielded back the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. cummings: the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. cummings: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 114-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 114-14 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 78, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: i thank the chairman and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is yielded as much time as he wishes to use. mr. connolly: mr. chairman, i rise today to urge my

colleagues to support the simple, clear amendment to h.r. 50. this amendment seeks to establish a performance-based sunset mechanism stipulating that in the event that the average annual rate of real g.d.p. growth remains below 5% 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 be ineffective. this amendment sets up a real-world measure and a sunset mechanism that all can support since it features the flexibility to ensure an optimal retons spo which every prediction of h.r. 50 takes place over the year following enactment. if this by lessening the innocence of independent regulatory agencies, and strengthening the private sector in the federal

rulemaking process, does in fact spur the economic growth we have heard so much about, to at least match the average annual real g.d.p. growth rates achieved during two administrations, the johnson and kennedy administrations, and in the last two quarters of this administration so far, what's the threat? what are we afraid of? however, if it fails to spur the promised economic growth to at least achieve an average annual growth rate of 5% over the year following the enactment of the law, then the statutory changes made by h.r. 50 will be repealed. 5% is reasonable. it's a reasonable target goal when one considers that according to the bureau of economic analysis, real g.d.p. growth under the obama economy reached 4.6% in the second quarter and 5% in the fourth. why wouldn't we expect h.r. 50 to be able to sustain that growth rate and indeed improve

on it in the first full year after enactment? 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. i strongly urge all of the members in the body to adopt this commonsense amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. i appreciate my colleague from virginia, i appreciate his tenacity and good work on these issues and on the committee of oversight and government reform. but i do have to suggest that if the economy is struggling, federal regulations should be -- federal regulators should be extra concerned about imposing undue and unnecessary costs on to the american public and the private sector job creators. in h.r. 50 it helps ensure that regulations that impose unfunded mandates on state, local and tribal governments and the private sector are

fully analyzed and considered. keep in mind we're focused here on unfunded mandates. this amendment would repeal this helpful legislation if g.d.p. rate grows a at less than 5%. to me -- grows at less than 5%. to me this is counterproductive. g.d.p. does not reflect the impact a regulatory mandate might have on a state or local government or a portion of the private sector. nor does it reflect the impact of regulations as a whole. ultimately g.d.p. growth is not a substitute for a sensible regulatory analysis and process. i would argue that regardless of g.d.p. growth or reduction, we need to allow, particularly these local governments these tribal governments these private individuals, it's the little guy that has this unfunded mandate thrust upon them that we have to review. so, repealing h.r. 50, if the g.d.p. is failing to grow, is contrary to the very purpose of

this bill and therefore i stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. chaffetz: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i would inquire how much time remains on this side. the chair: the gentlemam ra has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. connolly: i thank the chair and i just want to say in response to my friend from utah, all of a sudden we're now retreating from the economic rationale for moving beyond unfunded mandates. for getting the government off the necks of business so jobs can grow and the economy can just take off. now that's not really the purpose of this. it's transparency and getting unfunded mandates exposed. i think that's a fairly weak argument and justification for a bad bill. i now recognize the distinguished ranking member for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. cummings: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this commonsense amendment. the legislation we are

considering today has been sold by supporters as a jobs bill. give me a break. this amendment simply says that if the economy doesn't improve the way the bill's supporters say it will then the bill will sunset. it's as simple as that. the amendment would leave the unfunded mandates reform act untouched. this sunset provision would only impact the changes made by this bill. for those reasons i strongly support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: in summary, mr. chairman, i think this is a commonsense amendment. i think it sets a metric that i would hope my friends on the other side of the aisle would actually embrace. so that we can see whether a new piece of legislation is in fact working. it would allow the bill to go into a place for a whole year before that metric kicks in. and i think it's a commonsense amendment that actually gives us a chance to see whether the philosophy is indeed justified.

with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the gentleman from utah is recognize mr. chfe: d k the chair how muchime remains. the chair: the gentleman from utah has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. chaffetz: i thank the chairman. to take a metric of the gross domestic product the entire economy, and then have that be the weighted factor by what may happen to a dairy farmer, for instance, who's out there in utah or kansas or colorado, is not the way that we should be determining whether or not h.r. 50 is in place. if the economy is a winning, if the economy is decrease -- waning, if the economy is decreasing, if the production overall for our nation is declining, that may be the very key indicator that we have thrust too many unfunded mandates upon the little guy. the dairy farmer. the person who's got a transmission shop. it may be a whole host of

things. it may be on private property owners. you name it. pretty much in this country, there are mandates that are thrust upon people and they feel like they have no ability, no understanding why this happens. they don't feel like they have a voice in the process. so i stand in opposition to this amendment, so to the overall gross economy, to say that we're scruft going to repeal that or -- just going to repeal that, or h.r. 50, and get rid of our ability to ask people to consult, ask the government agencies to consult with local governments, to consult with private individuals, to talk to small businesses, we're going to just get rid of that because the economy's waning? i would argue that part of the reason our economy hasn't taken off is there are too many unfunded mandates, the government imposes these and they don't have a full understanding of what's causing these people to not hire more people, to invest more capital.

so i stand in opposition to this. i appreciate the gentleman who offered it. but i stand in opposition to this amendment and i would urge my colleagues a no vote and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendmentffedy e gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed,o. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part c of house report 114-14 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 2 by

mr. cummings of maryland, amendment number 3 by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 114-14 by the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 114-14 offered by mr. cummings of maryland. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representis. any u othcled-ptne coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercialurposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 245. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 114-14 by the gentleman from virginia mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postponed and

on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 114-14 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representates. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by th u.s. hoeprentives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173. the nays are 249.

the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker. -- mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker the committee of the whole house on the state of the union -- back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports tha commits had under consideration the bill h.r. 50

and pursuant to the house resolution 78 reports the bill, as amended, by the resolution, back to the house with further amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing federal mandates, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mrs. bustos: i am opposed in

the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will read the report. the clerk: mrs. bustos of yill moves to recommit the bill h.r. 50 to the government of oversight and government reform to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment -- at the end of the bill add the following new section. section 14, stopping sexual predators domestic violence and rape. this act, and the amendments made by this act, shall not apply to limit or restrict to any federal agency mandate or action, the purpose of which is to one, protect students and children from a person who has been convicted in any court of a sex offense against a minor. two, prevent domestic violence by stopping persons from harassing, stalking or threatening a spouse, family member and intimate partner or the child of an -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. will the clerk suspend?

the clerk will continue. the clerk: three, prevent rape or sexual assault or four, require criminal background checks for school or other employees through a search of the national crime information center, the f.b.i.'s integrated automated finter print identification system or the national sex offender public website. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady deserves to be heard. if everybody would take your conversations off the floor. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. bustos: thank you mr. speaker. this is the football amendment to the bill. it will not delay or kill the bill or send it back to committee. and if adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage, as amend. this amendment mr. speaker,

preserves critical protections against sexual and domestic violence. we must not be so eager to eliminate regulations that we remove important protections that keep our communities, our children and our families safe from harm. the underlying bill would essentially stop -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. would members take their conversations off the floor? the gentlelady will continue. mrs. bustos: thank you, again, mr. speaker. the underlying bill would essentially stop or bog down all regulation. my amendment would provide exemptions from the bill so there is no interruption in efforts to prevent sexual and domestic violence. this includes protecting children from convicted sex offenders and prevented domestic violence, including stalking. it also addresses rape and

sexual assault and using federal resources for background checks for school employees. on a personal note, before i came to congress, i worked as an investigative news reporter and my husband has spent his entire 30-year career in law enforcement and now serves as sheriff of rock island county, illinois. between the two of us, we've come across far too many disturbing and real-life stories of sexual and domestic violence. i'll always remember a case that i covered involving a little boy named jerry nelson. he was a small, defenseless child who was murdered in henry county illinois, which is now in the congressional district that i serve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady shall resume. mrs. bustos: i want to repeat that last line. this is what we're talking

about in this amendment. when i was a news reporter, a case i remember most was -- involved a 3-year-old child named jerry nelson. he was small, he was defenseless. he lived in an area called henry county, illinois which is now the center part of the congressional district that i serve. he was beaten, he was abused, he was terribly battered by his mother's boyfriend and this happened across the mississippi river where i live but in the state of iowa. when jerry's family moved across the mississippi river into the state of illinois, iowa did not share its case file, despite having investigated this, with the illinois authorities. and they were not required to do so. there was no mechanism in place for sharing the information. jerry's abuser would eventually sexually molest him and then murder him when he was just 3 years old. at that time, why this was so

emotional for me, is because he was the exact same age as my youngest child who today is 24 years old. when doctors examined little jerry nelson's body, they found more than 20 bruises, a broken clavicle, brain injuries consistent with falling from a three-story building onto concrete. my commonsense amendment that i'm telling you about right now would help prevent more children like jerry from becoming victims of heinous crimes and unimaginable trauma. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah, are you opposed to the motion? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i'm opposed to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i want to first note and thank the body, thank the speaker and the process by which we did this. this bill came up in regular order, in the government and oversight reform committee. we had a complete markup.

that was followed by going to the rules committee. every single amendment was offered at the rules committee was made in order, two democrat amendments as well as the republican amendment. we had good and lively debate about those and we just voted on those. i appreciate that. from my heart, i will tell you that i look forward to working with the gentlewoman from illinois and everybody else in this body to attack and go after, defend the innocent and make sure we attack domestic violence because it is very prevalent in every aspect of our body. i suggest to you this is the wrong amendment. what this does, it does not force the federal government to actually work with the individuals that are affected. what h.r. 50 does, what this bill does is to make sure that the federal government consults with individuals it consults with small businesses those that are affected by mandates. i want the federal government -- in fact i'd love to codify

the idea that the federal government, in this case, what you offer in the amendment, shouldn't talk to these people -- they should talk to them. we want them to talk to the national center for exploited children. they should be the first people they call. if you want to know what's happening to this country, go talk to the individuals that are affected by this. what this legislation, h.r. 50 does is to make sure that individuals are asked before. it makes sure that nothing is repealed. we don't get to unilaterally repeal things. i heard the word repeal. no, there are reports that we need to access and look at. and so if we truly want to get after domestic violence and these heinous crimes, these awful, hideous crimes then you want to vote in favor of h.r. 50 and make sure that federal government does go and consult with the victims of crime. i oppose this amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote --

this idea -- i shouldn't say amendment. this motion to recommit. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. boustany: i ask for a recorded vote -- mrs. bustos: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. favor favor -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote.