this has been passed legislation around here. sometimes what comes back, you don't recognize what you have passed legislatively. this bill and this amendment will help solve that problem to some extent. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, support the bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. it it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 115-2.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. graves: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-2, offered by mr. graves of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. grace and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. graves: since 2008, approximately 3,300 regulations have been issued on an annual basis. i'll say that again, since 2008, approximately 3,300 regulations have been issued on a regular basis, on an annual basis. the cost of compliance with those regulations is estimated to be somewhere around $9 1 million. if you add up the cost of compliance of all regulations, it's approximately double that. so according to various studies that are out there, since 2008,

perhaps one-half, or let me put it this way, since 2008, the cost of complying with federal regulations has doubled. mr. chairman, this isn't about some huge mega corporation that's worth billions of dollars and is a multinational company. this impacts individuals, this impacts families. as a matter of fact, a study done by the competitive enterprise institute estimates that approximately $15,000 per year is how much the average american family spends just to comply with federal regulations. now many of the regulations are regulations that are estimated to cost in excess of $100 million. under our amendment, what we do is we simply require that every five years, the federal agency that's promulgated, finalized the regulation that they go back and check how much it's actually costing to comply with the regulation. here's why it's important, mr. chairman. if you go back to relationlation proposed by the department of

the interior within the last year and a half having to do with real control and offshore energy production, the cost of complying with that regulation was going to be $883 million over 10 years. however a private analysis that was done fiment estimated that figure was one tenth of the true cost of compliance over the first decade. one tenth. there's nothing that holds federal agencies accountable. they can lowball number, stay below the threshold of a major action and never have to be held accountable to the additional analysis required for major regulatory actions. so this simply makes agencies go back on major regulations to requantify, reassess the cost of compliance, to make sure that their numbers are accurate that they understand the cost of compliance, the impact on the average american family. lastly, mr. chairman, i want to say this i'm from the state of louisiana. a study done by the mercada center found the state of louisiana is the most federally

regular lated state in the united states. so regulated that we are regulated 74% more than the average state. 74% more. that has a significant impact on jobs on our economy. the co-sponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from texas, that i worked very closely with, mr. chairman, his state of texas is burdened by an additional 3% of regulations above the national average. it's inappropriate. it penalizes our economy. it stends jobs overseas. most importantly, it penalizes american families. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. jrns: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: any time i hear the name of mercadas institute, i think pro-big business regulation. this amendment imposes even more paralyzing rule making

requirements to the more than 60 analytical and procedural requirements already mandated by the tite -- by title 1 of this bill. so you given them more homework on top of homework. busy work. red tape. gum up the works, that's what this is all about. the amendment would require agencies to assess the economic impacts of major rules every five years, including a cost benefit analysis of the rule every five years, an estimate of the rules' cost on regulated entities and whether these costs exceed an agency's initial estimates among other requirements. worse yet, once this information is compiled, the amendment would also require the agency to reopen the public docket on the rule for 60 days to consider modifications to the underlying rule. under current law, federal agencies already conduct an extensive retrospective review

process of existing rules and have already saved taxpayers billions in cost savings. this is yet another attempt to derail the rule making process by paralysis through analysis. since 2011, the obama administration has made a durable commitment to ensuring retrospective review of existing regulatory protections. pursuant to executive orders 13563 and 13610, agencies are already required to conduct a periodic review of existing rules to protect public health while reducing paperwork burdens. furthermore, as the obama administration stated in the context of a regulatory or -- in the context of a veto threat of a similarly draconian anti-regulatory proposal, it is important that retrospective review efforts not unnecessarily constrain an agency's ability to provide a timely response to

critical public health or safety issues or constrain its ability to implement new statutory provisions. this amendment would do just that, by requiring agencies to conduct a perpetual notice and comment process for major rules that have been adopted long ago. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields -- reserves. the chair -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. graves: i recognize the chairman of the judiciary committee for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i support this amendment. sthessne of these reform commonsense requirement that an agency when it publishes a major rule include a plan for reviewing how the rule is

working within 10 years. the focus of that review is to determine whether it is possible after the rule has been put into practice to find new ways to lower the rule's cost. the gentleman's amendment speeds this process up, require regular view within five years and increases congress' oversight, requiring reports by agencies to congress on their reviews. most important, the amendment requires that if an saget's report to congress shows the rules cost in practice are higher than an pis tated -- anticipated at promulgation, the agency must institute a notice and comment process aimed at finding provisions to lower costs. this this is -- this is a measure that can only strengthen the bill's effectiveness and help lower the burden on the american people. i support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for the 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. johnson: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. wayier.

the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. cuellar: thank you for the leadership you provided the committee for so many years. chairman goodlatte, i also thank you. mr. graves, thank you for working in a bipartisan way this amendment is commonsense. it calls on the government to bring transparency to the major rules. once an agency finalizes a major rule, that's the end of it. they're not required to review the benefits or the economic impacts. this amendment, however, holds the agency accountable by requiring that they look back, assess the cost an benefits of that rule after it's taken effect. should the cost of the regulation exceed the proposed cost under the rule, then under this amendment this agency will report back the increase to the congress and then this amendment will facilitate a dialogue between the agency and the stake holders. if the costs have gone up, the agency must open up a comment period to hear the stake holders and consider possible modifications or alternatives to reduce the cost and increase the

benefits. we do that in congress every time we pass a piece of legislation. we go back and fine tune the legislation. i think we need to do the same thing. again, we must not allow regulations to run out of control. we should hold agencies accountable. this amendment will bring transparency and begin those conversations between stake hold thearnsd agencies. again, i want to thank congressman graves and -- for this bipartisan amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from sleas recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman, i want to again thank the gentleman from texas, who we worked closely with in developing this amendment, legislation we introduced together last year with dozens of bipartisan co-sponsors. i want to in summary say this this is an article 1 issue this ensures that when an agency tells congress, they tell the american public that a -- that the regulation is going to cost a certain amount to comply with, that they're held accountable to that. this is about accountability and

transparency. my friend from georgia mentioned that this was, quote, busy work. mr. chairman, i want you to think about that. this applies to major rules that are estimated to cost in excess of $100 million to comply with. and they find it offensive that we ask them to look back one time every five years for rules that cost over $100 million on the american families? to comply with every single year? i'm offended by that. i'm sure that millions and millions of american families are offended by that as well. it's all summarized by this, mr. chairman. since 2009, for the first time in recorded history, we have had a net loss in small businesses in the united states. regulations are hidden taxes that inpayment -- that impact our businesses, that impact our employment opportunity, and drive jobs to other countries. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is

recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. bottom line is, my friends on the other side of the aisle in eir quest to satisfy the big businesses that fund these campaigns don't like regulations that protect the health, safety, and well being of americans, including children, including the elderly, the weak, the sick, they're trying to get rid of the affordable care act, trying to kill those regulations, trying to kill regulations on dodd frank protecting people from financial ruin. wall street. -- wall street barrens. this is -- barons. this is an incessant march toward a deregulatory environment. we can't let it continue unabated. we must protest. we must speak out. and we must do the right thing

to protect the people of this country. and for that -- for that reason, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 115-2.

for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. young: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 115-2, offered by mr. young of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from iowa, mr. young, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. young. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from virginia for his help and leadership on this issue. this amendment is designed to make an already very good bill even better. regulators regulate. that's what they do. regulators regulate businesses, large and small, state and local governments, nonprofits, individuals, etc., etc. now, these regulated entities often rely on guidance from agencies to become compliant with a new rule or regulation

but occasionally this guidance is offered far too late in the process, leaving entities with a decision to either move forward without guidance and face possible penalties, litigation, losses, or to wait until guidance is offered and then scramble to implement changes before the deadline. increasing the likelihood for mistakes and failure. my amendment seeks to ensure guidance is offered and available in a timely manner by instructing agencies to the office of information and regular willer to affairs to issue guidance at least 90 days before a rule or regulation goes into effect so affected entities have time to comply. as an example, companies recently experienced the hardships of late guidance from h.h.s. through c.m.s. there's a company in iowa and similar companies from around america that produce forms using post acute health care

reimbursements, including skilled nursing and home care, both of which receive funding through medicare. so c.m.s. is responsible for setting rules for reimbursement forms. ok, fine. c.m.s. specified a new set of rules for forms going into effect at the begin og they have year. ok, great. so this company and other companies waited for c.m.s. guidance before printing and sending reimbursement forms to its customers and this company waited and they waited and they waited. three weeks before the effective date, this company and others like it hadn't heard anything from c.m.s. on guidance or directions. rickets. so at this point they had to make a decision. that's a reality. have the required forms to customers in time tore the new -- for the new year or send it to print, say a prayer, roll

the dice and hope they will be later found in compliance? they sent the forms to print knowing in full well they would eat the cost if the forms would not comply. losses, penalties, litigation, a soiled reputation, those are the real things the lack of guidance and notice causes. thankfully everything worked out in this situation, but in another situations things haven't worked out. a few days after they sent the forms to print, c.m.s. finally approved. however, this situation illustrates a broader problem that occurs too often transcending in other instances through the economy and needs to be addressed. we need to make sure when we give agencies the power to effectively write law and we ensure compliance guidelines are clear cut, timely and enforcement is fair, allowing the regulatory process to continue as is and agencies to issue needed guidance, at the last minute we only further burden americans and their organizations, businesses, these individuals in our

districts. so i want to be clear what the amendment does not do. this amendment does not change a rule or regulation in any way. it does not direct the office of information and regulatory affairs to do or speak to anything else other than the timely -- timeliness issue i just described. it says when guidance is forthcoming it's timely. i ask my colleagues to approve this process so our constituents are not wringing their hands and waiting. let's get this fix, mr. chairman. i ask my colleagues to support this eanlt underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: to claim the time in recognition. -- opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: i in the

underlying legislation, it makes clear that during any compliance period for guidance it's nonbinding. so i rise in opposition to this amendment, which imposes an unnecessary and burdensome 90-day waiting period for them to issue guiding documents. importantly, as a form of nonlegislative -- as a form of nonlegislative rule, guidance documents do not have the force of law and are not subjected to the administrative procedure act's notice and comment requirements. section 104 of h.r. 5 already clarifies that these documents are not legally binding and may not be relied upon by an agency as legal grounds for agency action. this provision additionally requires agencies to make this document available to the public and provide a plain and

prominent statement that document is not legally binding. given the requirements that already exist in current law and the additional requirements imposed by title 1 of this bill, it is difficult to ascertain why an additional 90-day compliance period for guidance that is not legally binding is warranted. furthermore, in all cases regulated entities have ample opportunity to challenge rules, including guidance, as, quote, arbitrary or capricious, end quote, under the administrative procedure act where an agency lacks statutory authority to issue the guidance or the guidances otherwise legally unsound. cagan said ustice in paralyzed veterans vs. mortgage bankers, the a.p.c. provides a variety of constraints on an agency's

decisionmaking, the arbitrary and capricious standard being among the most notable. accordingly, i oppose the amendment and i urge my colleagues to do the same and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. young: mr. chairman, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has one minute remaining. mr. young: i would like to yield that to the chairman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman and i support his amendment. agency guidance is a crucial part of our regulatory system. flexibility because -- flexible because not legally binding but needed so regulated entities can understand how best to comply with agency rules. guidance, if it responds in a timely way to the regulated community's need for it, helps everything to function smoothly. but one thing that does not help is agency heel dragging in the issuance of guidance as the regulated community comes up against legal or practical deadlines by which it needs to

implement compliance measures. too often agencies hurry up and wait to produce needed guidance, then tell those who up. d to hurry that doesn't leave time until the deadline hits. this amendment requires that within good guidance guidelines be issued by the office of information and regulatory affairs. under the bill, there would be guidelines for agencies generally to assure at least 90 days for regulated entities to institute measures consistent with newly issued guidelines. i support the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 115-2.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. castor: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: thank you, mr. chair. i rise to offer an amendment to this troubling bill a bill that will erodes the separation of powers safeguard in the united states constitution. my amendment would exempt from this bill rules that protect children and older americans from cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks and respiratory diseases so that such rules are not irresponsibleably delayed or denied. see, h.r. 5 unreasonably condemns every major rule no matter its subject to an early bureaucratic demise at the hands of the special interests.

many laws and regulations that are adopted and developed to protect the public health and protect costly chronic diseases really shouldn't be put on the back burner just because special interests can oftentimes muck up the gears of government here in washington. for example, the clean air act, which has been in place for over 40 years, has been one of the most effective public health laws on the books. in 1970, at a time when smog was dense and visible in our cities and towns and industrial areas, our leaders took an important step to protect the public health and regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants by adopting the clean air act. with only one nay vote here in the entire congress. since then agency rules and regulations have been adopted to implement the act based upon the best science. those vital policies have

improved our health, protected all americans from harmful air pollutions such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particle matter. this republican bill, h.r. 5, largely would end our ability to develop future safeguards for clean air. toxic pollutants like ozone, which is a major component of smog, are linked to asthma, lung and heart disease and result in thousands of deaths every year and up to one million days of missed school. our kids are particularly susceptible to this type of pollution because their lungs are still developing and they're more likely to spend long periods outdoors, placing them at higher risks. the american lung association states that inhaling smog pollution is like getting a sunburn on your lungs and often results in immediate breathing trouble. the local university in tampa,

the university of south florida, its department of children and family did a study in 2014 and state in the -- and said in the state of florida alone that there were over 6,500 asthma hospitalizations. any american who's been alive since the adoption of the clean air act in the 1970's has an appreciation for the benefits of clean air. america is stronger. americans are healthier because of the clean air act. let's not go backwards. this bill, if adopted, would undermine the clean air act and so many other policies that lift and protect our neighbors. we still have work to do when it comes to the air that we breathe because even with all the progress we've made, many working-class communities continue to bear the brunt of environmental pollution because oftentimes the only homes that are affordable are located near industrial sites.

according to the naacp, 78% of african-americans live within 30 miles of an industrial power plant, and 71% of african-americans live in counties that violate pollution standards. and latinos neighbors are three times more likely to die from asthma often for the same reasons. if you -- if you establish such barriers to cleaning our air, it's not only our families and neighbors that will suffer, but it will also be the american economy. far from being an economic burden, clean air protections in the u.s. have a great track record. demonstrating that economic growth and pollution reduction can go hand in hand. since 1970, we've cut harmful air pollution by about 70%, and the u.s. economy has more than tripled. so i urge my colleagues to side with hardworking american families and not corporate polluters who love this bill. don't prioritize polluter

profits over science and the health and safety of the public, especially the most vulnerable among us, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes, without objection. mr. marino: it two strike from the bill the judicial review provisions. the resulting legislation, rather than restore an adequate framework of checks and balances against agency overreach and abuse, would perpetrate -- and perpetuate futures among the worst of our current runaway regulatory system. we cannot complete true regulatory reform without restoring to the judicial branch of vigorous powers and

judicial review the amendment would strike. in addition, the bill would exclude from title 1's critical rulemaking reforms all rules to reduce the incidences of cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks and respiratory diseases in children and seniors. all of us support the reduction and morbidity and mortality against children and seniors. rules to advance these goals, done properly, contributes substantially to our nation's health and well-being, but the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals. it simply assures the agencies issuing these types of rules and all agency rulemaking in general would avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulations and issues -- less costly regulation and guidance when necessary. i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlelady from florida. ms. castor: thank you, mr.

chair. colleagues, i urge you to vote yes on the castor amendment to protect children's health, to protect the health of our older neighbors. we value the air that we breathe. h.r. 5 would put unnecessary barriers -- it would inject unnecessary barriers into the ability of our environmental agencies. heck, all of the agencies of government to protect us. and then when it comes to the final bill itself, if you believe in checks and balances as a foundation of our constitutionally based government, i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: i believe in the constitution just like anyone else. we as congress men and women have a responsibility to make the laws, not unelected bureaucrats who have no experience in a lot of the areas where they're making these laws and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentlelady from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. castor: mr. chair, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 115-2, offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. cicilline: the bill before us today promises to update the way they issue rules and

regulations. but it's a solution in search of a problem. when they issue a rule or regulation they must consider the cost of the rule. within this framework, agencies have been granted the necessary latitude to react quickly to urgent crises in consumer safety. it's preserved the safety of our food and drinking water, protected families from defects in the products we rely on every day. however the passage of the bill in its current form would put the safety and protection at risk. with h.r. 5, we are getting six reform bill -- reform bills rolled into one. this will add 60 new procedural and analytical requirements to the agency rule making process. it will invite frivolous litigation against agency, empower special interests and emphasize cost savings over public protection. if enacted, h.r. 5 will needless willly create a burden ssh such a burden on the rule making

process that it will hamstring agencies and discolonel them from making rules at all. it endidge, endangers our nation's environmental, workplace safety and other areas. my amendment would offer critical protection by exempting rules pertaining to the transmission of food borne illness or assistance to food facilities to have requirements for food safety prosm tecting from food contamination is a worthy amendment in itself, and this amendment would go further by protecting jobs and businesses. for example , in 2015, blue bell creamery suffered a dead lillis tiera crisis an had to recall eight million gallons of ice cream. after the company shut down most of its production they were forced to lay off 14,050 employees from their jobs or 37% of their work force and an additional 1,400 were furloughed. chipotle, another example is

reeling from various outbreaks of e. coli, salmonella and nor ro virus which caused widespread panic among customers and the company's shareholders. despite marketing efforts to improve their reputation, their sales have declined and they plan to open fewer stores in 2017 this had an effect on their paper bowl supplier who layed f employees in response to chipotle. both chipotle and blue bell took steps such as a deep clean of facility, training employees and temporaryly su spending operations. the f.d.a. responded by proposing proactive rules, such as having manufacturers look for potential problems and how to respond to them. they also had rules pertaining packing and handling protest.

this could minimize future food contamination and having to deal with the economic aftermath of an outbreak. however under h.r. 5, similar such f.d.a. rules could be delayed by years halted entirely. we can't afford to put consumer safety and our economy at risk while congress entangles any real possibility for immediate and preventive action. but -- so i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to ensure we protect the public, the health and safety of our constituents, and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. marino: to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: like the previous amendment, this amendment would strike from the bill the restoration of powers -- the separation of powers restoration act. faced with runaway administrative state we must not

gut the bill's crucial reinforcements of judicial checks and balances against agency overreach and abuse. for this reason alone the amendment should be rejected. in addition, the bill would exclude from title 1's long needed rule making reforms numerous types of food safety regulation. all of us support food safety. the bill does nothing to frustrate the protection of food safety. in fact, it calls upon regulatory agencies to reach objectives in this and all areas. beyond that, it ensures that agency rule making will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulations and produce smarter, less costly regulations and guidance when necessary. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank my friend from pennsylvania for his comments but the assertion that this does nothing to frustrate

or jeopardize food safety is not true. this in fact creates 60 new procedural and analytical requirements to agency action and that ill invite frivolous litigation, empower special interests, emphasize cost savings over public protection and make implementation of rules almost impossible. it's important to remember, mr. chairman that when issuing a rule, federal agencies already are required to adhishe to a rigorous analytical process of considering alteshtives to consider the cost of the rule. i've given two examples in my earlier comments that demonstrate in fact there are -- there's a real role for the federal government in the implementation of rules to protect food safety. and there are real consequences not only to the individuals who are harmed but to our economy by these sorts of events. and this will bill not only frustrate that, in many instances it will make it impossible. i urge my colleagues to support

this very commonsense amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island yields back. the gentleman from spelve recognized. mr. marino: i respectfully disagree with my friend and nato membering we've traveled together. a lot of delay now is because of the agencies and how long they take to make decisions. with the premise behind our bills combined are simply this. agency comes up with an idea that think think will improve the quality of life, which is what they should be doing. they immediately send it to us in the house and we make the determination as to whether it's good law or bad law. and apply it that way. we certainly have the time in the house and i'm sure the senate has the time to address these matters quickly and not delay it as long as the agency has been delaying making rules. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. the gentleman from -- a recorded vote -- a recorded vote has been called for. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceeding on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 115-2, offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, an a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my

amendment to h.r. 5, which would exempt from the bill rules that improve the employment, retention and wages of work force participants, especially those with significant barriers to employment. when president obama took office in 2009, he inherited the worst economic crisis since the great depression. since then, president obama's north star on domestic policy has long been to make the economy work for the middle class and for those fighting to join it. notwithstanding historic austerity levels and a republican congress more interested in winning elections and putting -- than putting americans back to work or increasing cages -- wages, president obama has largely achieved this goal while rescuing the auto industry and signing tax cuts for middle class persons as opposed to just simply big business. according to the leading economic data, private sector

businesses have created more than 15 million new jobs, the unemployment rate has dropped well below 5% to the lowest point in nearly a decade, wages are rising, and the poverty rate has dropped to the lowest point since 1968 and more people have health insurance than ever before. this has all occurred during an administration that's pro-environment, pro-clean energy, pro-workplace, safe -- pro-workplace safety, pro medical care, pro medicare, pro medicaid, pro social security. and in fact, during this time, our nation has doubled its production of clean energy and reduced carbon emissions faster than any other advanced nation. not withstanding this progress, there is still much work to be done for millions of americans in every part of our country who are out of work, underemployed, or have not seen significant wage growth post-recession.

but they should understand that it was the republicans who caused that to happen by not wanting to work with the president and members of the democratic party to make things better for working people in this country. congress should be working tirelessly now across party lines to find solutions to persistent unemployment and stagnant wages such as a public infrastructure investment agenda that will increase productivity and domestic output while turning the page on our historic underinvestment in our nation's roads, bridges and educational institutions. unfortunately, this bill, h.r. 5 is not one of those solutions. the regulatory accountability act is nothing short of a train wreck for critical public health and safety protections that ensure that our air is clean, our water is pure, and that our

workplace vehicles -- workplace, vehicles, homes, and consumer products are safe. consumer products are safe. freeing corporations from the cost of protecting americans against harmful activity is not the right path forward to increasing employment and wages for all. it's just simply a giveaway to the corporate sector that supports them. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. marino: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: this amendment would strike from the bill separation of powers restoration act, an essential judicial review provision of the regulatory accountability act. it too should be rejected for those reasons. in addition, the bill would exclude from title 1's rule make regular forms new mexico rause times of -- types of rules related to employment and wages. once again, the bill does

nothing to prevent good rules in those air -- in these areas. on the contrary, it would produce better rules, rules that are smarter an less costly, bringing in resources for job creation and higher wages. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my teem. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: yes, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague from texas, the honorable sheila jackson lee. the chair: the gentleman yields the gentlewoman from texas. for the balance of me time. ms. jackson lee: may i ask the remaining time? the chair: one and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you. let me applaud the gentleman, mr. johnson, the ranking member of the subcommittee for his leadership on these issues and the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers, for his persistent leadership having gone over this bill any number of times. let me mention that mr. johnson's bill is vital because

it deals with vulnerable work force individuals with disabilities, limited english proficiency and other requirements and i would beg to differ with my good friend from pennsylvania. 70 different elements of criteria that you will put these amendments, these regulations through, you're simply trying to implode those who advocate for the rights of workers, unions, and others and therefore i would question the viability of trying to obstruct helping these vulnerable workers. this is a very good amendment. let me be very clear. since 2010, u.s. businesses have added 15.6 million job, from 2014 to 2015, reel -- real median household income grew by 22.5%. we know that demographic changes and labor force participation, driven by a large increase in retirement by baby boomers has consistently weighed unemployment growth. it is quite different from when president reagan was.

in the labor force participation rate is low because of these variables. these are not going to improve participation. the obama recovery has been slow because the baby boomers were in their prim. now the baby boomers are retiring. we need to provide opportunities for younger workers, minority workers, workers with disabilities and this h.r. 5 with all these hoops that the regulation has to go through, that are protecting or empowering workers or increasing the opportunities for workers is certainly going to thwart this growth. you can in the deny that this administration has seen growth with 200,000 plus jobs per month over a series of years. i would argue that mr. johnson's amendment is a strong amendment, it promotes job growth and it gives opportunities to many who are vulnerable in the work force. i ask my colleagues to support the johnson amendment. i yield back. the chair: the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: i ask my colleagues

to oppose this amendment and as far as the jobs increase or lack thereof that my colleague speaks of, we had the slowest jobs growth rate in the history of this country. there are millions of people that are unemployed that are not seeking unemployment benefits and they are not taking into consideration into the unemployment rate because it's much higher than it is and the mean family income is a low as far back as 14 years ago. ms. jackson lee: if the gentleman will yield? mr. marino: i would. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for his kindness. would you not count automation and technology as one of the elements and the idea of the retiring of baby boomers as part of the issue of growth and can we not work together to question those particular elements so that we can collectively and collaboratively promote job

growth? mr. marino: well, certainly i would enjoy working on job growth with you. we've worked on issues in the past. but you forget the technology that created jobs. people have to write those programs. people have to build it. they have to come up with very intense, very intory indicate cate o make the -- intri ways to make the software. my daughter is a software major in college and the jobs are abundantly available. so the jobs are there. but what i'm hearing from people in my district and across the country is the regulations being imposed not only this administration but other administrations as well, are crushing particularly our small businesses. so if we can step back and eliminate these job-crushing regulations and take into consideration the economics involved, we're going to create more jobs, we're going to

protect people and we're going to protect the health of people and with that i yield back. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i beg to differ. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. ruiz: mr. chairman, i have an amendment to h.r. 5 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part a of house

report 115-2 offered by mr. ruiz of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from california, mr. ruiz, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. ruiz: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 5 which will ensure children's products are safe for use. in 2015, there were an estimated 254,200 toy-related injuries treated in emergency departments across the nation. tragically, 15 children were killed in toy-related incidents that same year. as an emergency medicine physician, i have treated children who have fallen victim to these accidents. h.r. 5, the regulatory accountability act, provides cheaper alternatives for companies over the safety of our children. to me, this is unconscionable. it is wrong. it is not the direction we

should take -- should be taking our nation. my amendment to h.r. 5 will ensure that an agency rule regarding the safety of children's products or toys are not delayed by the bureaucratic hurdles that h.r. 5 imposes on federal agencies. my simple amendment provides a straightforward safety net for our sons and daughters across the country. our children should always be our priority. the facts are clear, a vote against my amendment is a vote to put a company's butt on the line above the safety of our children. and so i urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to protect our children. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. marino: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: like other carveout amendments just offered, this amendment would strike from the bill the separation of powers restoration act and the essential judicial review provisions of the regulatory accountability act.

it should be rejected. we should not be settling for weak judicial review that produces rubber stamps of agency action. we should be voting for the strong judicial review reform in the bill that prevents judicial rubber stamps. beyond that, the bill would exclude from title 1's rulemaking reforms children's toys and products safety rules. but, again, the bill does nothing to prevent rules in these areas. rules that are smarter and less costly, freeing resources for job creation, higher wages. smarter rules are precisely what we need to protect children's health and safety, and more jobs and higher wages are what are needed to help families to provide for their children. i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. ruiz: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to emphasize what is at stake here. we're talking about delaying or

forgoing regulations that protect our children, regulations that give parents like me the peace of mind that when i buy a bottle for my daughter, skye, i know it's safe for her to use. and when i buy a product appropriate for her age, i know it won't contain small products that will send her to an emergency room that would require her emergency surgery. for me as a dad it's personal and for a nation it's essential. this is commonsense legislation. i urge my colleagues to put aside partisanship politics and corporate greed and think about the children in their lives who could be harmed by this bill. vote yes on my amendment to protect children and save lives. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: the gentleman does not have the market cornered on worrying about the safety of our children. i think anybody in this room

who has children has just as much concern for our children. what his amendment does is gut, it guts regulation, and what the way we should be handling these is we'll improve the quality of life and improve the protections and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. ruiz: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. ruiz: i ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 115-2.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? scott gellar mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk -- mr. scott: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk made in order on the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. scott of virginia. the chair: pursuant to how the resolution 33, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: this will exempt regulations proposed by the osha fety and health or and plmbings sha which will prevent or reduce incidence of traumatic injury, cancer or irreversible lung disease. this bill will add layers to the rulemaking process and provide incentives to frivolous

lawsuits while companies -- while trying to keep work -- currently it requires an extensive review process and stakeholder engagement from risk assessment, economic feasibility determinations, public hearings, multiple opportunities for public comment. according to the g.a.o. to meet these requirements it takes osha seven years to issue a new safety standard. in fact, it required 18 years for osha to update a rule that reduces exposure to beryllium, a metal that causes irreversible lung disease, even though there was broad agreement on the new standards. h.r. 5 imposes 60 additional procedural steps in order to issue a new rule on top of extensive layers of review already required by the administrative procedures act and the regulatory flexibility act, the data quality act and numerous executive orders.

the goal of adding these layers are obvious. it ties agencies suven as osha and msha in red tape so they can't do their jobs, improving workplace safety. one troubling part of the bill would require a supermandate that requires agencies to use the least cost alternative instead of the most productive rule. nobody favors excessive costs, but this requirement overrides the carefully balanced requirements in osha that require life and limb must be fully protected provided that the safety requirements are technically and economically feasible. that's the present law. the question that needs to be asked is, the least cost to whom and at what cost to others, what is the least cost mandate protection of workers is the -- is the least cost mandate secondary to worker -- to worker safety in order to limit cost to corporations and

then again, who decides? under the bill, some regulations could be delayed until the end of the -- any litigation, the final determination in a lawsuit which with trials and appeals could take years. the bill provides for -- the bill prohibits the rules from going into effect until the end of the litigation. and normally, you can get an injunction, but that would require the court to consider the likelihood of success of the lawsuit and the potential harm done if the injunction is issued or not issued. had under h.r. 5 -- under h.r. 5, this could provide the least cost alternative but only if the agency demonstrates that the additional benefits outweighs the additional costs. it eliminates the well-established test under osha which requires the most productive standard which is feasible and that standard obviously just invites litigation which will delay the final rule for years.

the problem with the least cost framework is it will tip the playing field to provide least cost to industry but at the expense of workers. according to expert witnesses before the judiciary committee, this bill will add another two or three years to the regulatory process and these delays will prevent -- will allow preventable injuries and occupational diseases to continue unabated. mr. speaker, the premise behind this legislation is based on the erroneous assumption that regulations issued over the last eight years have obstructed job growth. however, employment statistics do not bear this out. since the end of the recovery the u.s. economy -- since the end of the recision, the u.s. economy has gained almost 16 million jobs while establishing the longest consecutive months of job growth on record. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment to ensure even if the bill passes, osha and msha will be able to prevent or

reduce the incidents of traumatic injury, cancer or irreversible lung disease. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. marino: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: i certainly respect what my friend on the other side of the aisle has to say, but, again, i respectively disagree. once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would strike from the bill the separation of powers restoration act and the essential judicial review provisions of the regulatory accountability act that would have one effect -- to preserve the freedom to run riot that washington bureaucrats have done for decades as he had racked up $2 trillion in regulatory burdens on the american people. the amendment would exclude from title 1 workplace safety rules issued by osha or the mine safety and health administration to reduce

traumatic injury, cancer or lung disease. i would urge my colleagues to read the bill and listen more closely. the bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. it will produce better rules, smarter rules, less costly rules that will free up resources for desperately needed job creation, meaning more workers will have more safe workplaces in which to earn a living. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i would inquire if the gentleman is prepared to close. . thank you. i yield myself the balance of the time. just to say, mr. chairman, that this amendment will preserve the ability of the executive branch to promulgate rules which will save lives and avoid preventable deaths and disease. a vote for the amendment is a vote for a safe workplace. i would hope that would you

adopt the amendment and save lives. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. scott: mr. chairman, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. scott: 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. tonko: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman

from new york, mr. tonko, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. last may, democrats and republicans came together to pass the first major environmental law in decades. the frank r. lawsuitenberg chemical safety for the 21st century act. before this reform, it had been widely acknowledged that the toxic substances control act was broken. the law was hampered by litigation since shortly after it was passed. in 1976. and was rendered almost completely ineffective. it has only been seven months since over 400 members voted for this reform, which requires a number -- excuse me, a number of new rulemakings by the e.p.a. a primary motivation to reform tsca was to remove procedural hurdles that were preventing e.p.a. from regulating dangerous chemicals. the bill before us today would impose new, unnecessary obstacles in the rulemaking

process, which will impede agencies that already are struggling with shrinking budgets and time constraints. even some of the members that had concerns with tsca reform, myself included, would grea that it is imperative that -- agree that it is imperative these rulemakings go forward efficiently, in order to protect public health and give the private sector the certainty that it asks for when it supported the reform effort. unlike 233 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i did not vote for this bill. but i do firmly believe that the rulemakings required by this law must be done and done effectively and quickly. unfortunately the bill before us today would undermine that process. and for the record, i do not believe any amendments will fix the underlying bill. and i hope my colleagues will oppose this bill later today. while congress has moved on to other priorities, the e.p.a. has been hard at work, implementing the law as congress intended.

since being signed into law in june, e.p.a. has already put into place new processes to review new chemicals, which is exactly what this house instructed them to do. a number of rulemakings will soon get under way, focused on how e.p.a. prioritizes chemicals for evaluation and how it will conduct risk evaluation. other rules regarding the e.p.a.'s chemical inventory and the process for collecting fees will also be needed. the members that worked on tsca reform deferred many of these procedural decisions to e.p.a. because we lack the expertise necessary to determine every detail of the most effective, streamlined regulatory process. we are not toxicologists or chemists. so we empower the scientists that do this work to receive public feedback and create regulationses. based on congressional intent, within a reasonable amount of time. it is clear that an overwhelming number of members of the house

believe that e.p.a. needed these tools when we passed the bill. to fix e.p.a.'s chemical program. let's not tie the agency's hands, as it seeks effective implementation. we have seen what happens with a broken chemical safety law. let's not go back to that. i would also caution against the bill's requirement to choose the least costly regulation option. people familiar with the tsca act will know the term least burdensome, which required e.p.a. to select the restriction that was demonstrated to be the least burdensome to address identified risks. in practice, this requirement was so onerous that e.p.a. was not even able to restrict known carcinogens like asbestos. the bill ended this requirement. let's not reinstate this problem for our agency. personally, i do not believe my amendment goes far enough. we should exempt every major

environmental law responsible for protecting americans' air, water and land from this bill. we have seen in many cases that these rules do not hurt the economy. they protect public health. and they provide much greater . nefits to society than costs many of our bedrock environmental statutes require agencies to review and update their rules periodically. members of congress should not prevent an agency from simply doing its job that is required of it under the law. but in terms of this amendment and tsca reform, congress knew exactly what would be asked of e.p.a. in order to carry out the chemical safety act for the 21st century when we passed it by a vote of 403-12, just a few months ago. we cannot tell e.p.a. to do something and then tie its hands and expect it to get along -- get it done. so this amendment is simple.

do member of this body want to give our regulatory agencies the tools they need to implement the laws that congress has passed? and in my view it should not matter if these laws were passed six months ago or 60 years ago. or should we make it more difficult to implement effective rulemakings even when there's legislative consensus about the need for them? with that, mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: one last time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would strike from the bill separation of powers restoration act and the judicial review provisions of the regulatory accountability ability. and one last time, that attempt should be rejected. we need a strong judiciary, not a supine one, to stand up to

agency overreach and abuse and protect the liberty and property of americans from the long hands of washington's restless bureaucrats. the amendment also would exclude from title 1's rulemaking reforms rules issued under the chemical safety for the 21st century act. chemical safety is important to all of us. congress worked hard on that new chemical safety legislation. but it is smart regulation supported by sound science, at less cost that will be -- that will best produce chemicals under that act. that is precisely the kind of regulation that will happen once the 21st century rulemaking reforms in the regulatory accountability act become law. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. tonko: mr. chair. i would respectfully request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in art a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman.

today this republican congress is taking a short break from trying to destroy our health care system, to try to destroy the rest of the federal government. h.r. 5 is nothing more than republicans seeking to micromanage the regulatory process to death. they claim they only want good government. in reality, they want no government at all. they want to wrap federal agencies in so much red tape that they won't be able to move to protect our health, our safety or our natural resources. language in title 3 tries to prevent federal land managers from actually managing federal lands. this language would make land managers jump through the same procedural hoops over and over again just to put a new land management plan in place. these new requirements are completely redundant, which is, of course, the point. federal land management plans already go through extensive

review, including the public. before they are even implemented. one way we know that the house republicans complain constantly about how long it takes federal agencies to come up with a decision and yet here they are claiming that this republican congress knows best how our public landses and resources -- lands and resources should be managed. let's stop and look at the record. last tuesday, almost every single republican member of this house voted for a change in our house standing rules to calculate the value of all federal lands at zero for accountinging purposes. -- accounting purposes. yes. house republicans agreed that all federal lands are essentially worthless. then on thursday of this week, 229 house republicans voted against an amendment i offered to another bill to declare that climate change is real. yes, 95% of house republicans

voted to deny a settled scientific fact. and yet here we are today, with the same house republicans who deny science, the same house republicans who think public lands are worthless, claiming they know how to manage these public lands. science deniers and those who think our public lands have no value have no credibility when they bring legislation to this floor claiming that they want to improve public land management. as with health care, as with so many things, they don't want to improve it, they want to destroy it. congressional republicans have proven themselves completely incapable of building or preserving anything. they are only interested in tearing things down, starting with health, safety and environmental protections for our people and our communities. this bill would needlessly tip the scales in favor of corporate

polluters. who want to be in power to ruin our public lands, taking the resources and the profits for themselves and leaving the american people with the mess and the consequences. my amendment strikes the section of this bill intended to turn our public land management process into nothing more than a board meeting of the american petroleum institute. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment and i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a long standing position of the chief council for soketsy of the small business administration -- advocacy of small business administration has been that land management plans developed by the forest service and by the bureau of land management are rules. mr. chabot: and that they are subject to analysis under the f.r.a. the same conclusion, that a lands resource management plan

is a rule, has been reached by the government accountability office. given the potentially significant consequences, the small -- to small businesses that rely on public lands and small communities that border those lands, the forest service and the bureau of land management should assess the impacts of their plans on these small enltities. that's all this does -- entities. that's all this does. we're saying, how does it affect small businesss? 70% of the jobs created in america are created by small businesseses. should we care about what the bureaucrats are doing, how it affects those folks that are creating all these jobs? common sense says, yep, we ought to do that. this bill already includes a reform to require those agencies to prepare regulatory flexibility analysis when they are developing changes to resource management plans to determine how small businesses and small communities would be affected. striking this provision from the bill would do away with a needed

reform for small businesses. such as farmers and ranchers and their small communities. especially those located in the western united states. which contains the vast majority of federal land. i would also note that my esteemed colleague talks about republicans trying to destroy health care in this country, that's obviously absurd. we're trying to save health care. we're trying to make sure that americans aren't forced to pay a heck of a lot more and have higher deductions, things they can't afford, plans right noh now, they're paying for plans -- right now, they're playing for plans and oftentimes get zeer sew health care out of those -- zero health care out of those plans because deductibles are so high under obamacare they can't even use it. i think there are a whole lot of people, when this was forced through this congress, on a purely partisan vote by my colleagues, the democrats, at that time, and by this president, there were a lot of republicans who would have loved

to have joined with them and do something to help people get health care who didn't have it, that's a worthy cause, but that could have been done without screwing up everybody else's health care in this country, that's what they failed to do when they did this. we're hoping in a bipartisan way we can improve health care for a lot of folks in this country. we'll see if that's going to work out or not. i would also note that there's nobody on this side of the aisle who thinks we need no government at all, we need no regulations, we need no rules, but we don't want to overregulate the job creators in this country so that they can't create jobs because those jobs that people don't get, those are real people. people that get knocked out of that employment are real people, and they have families, so we ought to be supporting them. overregulation kills those jobs. and i would finally note relative to climate change, what we're saying is that if

we're going to do something, let's do it in a smart manner. let's not try to save, you know, some things and then knock thousands, probably millions of americans out of their jobs. there's a smart way of doing it, and there's a wrong way of doing it and we'd like to do it the smart way and i would now reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the comments of my esteemed colleague. we have to get past the point where we're talking about repeal. as the president so eloquently said last night, if there's something that's going to improve, the health and well-being of the american people, relative to the affordable care act, then bring it forward. and we all patiently have been waiting for that -- for the republican majority to bring something forward that not only

repeals but replaces. we're still waiting. in terms of this amendment, the resource management plans are the backbone of every action improved and used on b.l.m. plan. it's about scoping, it's about public input, about collaborative with state, local, tribal and user groups across the spectrum and that is the process that's in place now. process that deserves to be continued, ratified and protected. and as far as the issue of climate change, the president eloquently said last night that we should go forward on the issue of climate change putting science and reason as a priority on how we have that discussion. once the majority is prepared to deal with science and reason, i think our side of the aisle is willing to do as well. with that i yield back the remainder of my time.

thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. chabot: we yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman, on that i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 15 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in part a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? opposed to the bill mr. chairman, -- will posey: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. posey of florida.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from florida, mr. posey and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. posey: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is about transparency and accountability. i rise to urge my colleagues to support it. excuse me. when an agency decides to write rule or revise an old one, they need to support their proposal. for many years scientific research has relied upon the peer review process to ensure quality, integrity and objectivity of published work. peer review is when scientists open their research to the scrutiny to other experts in the field in order to receive feedback, criticism and ensure their conclusions are sound. unfortunately, when peer reviews of information return unfavorable comments or raise unforeseen issues of quality of

work, some agencies have acted to silence or hide the criteeks. this, of course, is -- critiques. this, of course, is bad science and results in bad policy. a recent example of this use occurred during a highly technical rulemaking proceeding in which an agency relied heavily upon a single study that many criticized and profoundly inadequate. the agency commissioned two peer reviews of the study which were completed and returned two weeks into the comment period for the public. however, after both scholars submitted highly critical reviews that echoed the concerns of the many commentators, sadly the agency withheld the release of their work to the public. when the agency finally did release the information as required by law, it was on a friday. that marked the very last day of the comment period. as part of the mass negative document dump that buried the negative reviews. the political cherrypicking of

scientific information and manipulation of the public record harms both quality -- harms both the quality of federal regulations as well as the overall integrity of the rulemaking proceeding. when federal agencies dwribts scientific research supporting a propose -- distributing scientific research supporting a proposed rule, the public needs to make sure the science is of the highest quality and have a due process, right to comment meaningfully on the rules the science intends to support. my amendment will help protect this basic principle of good government and ensure fairness of federal rulemaking by requiring that the public be provided with a clear timeline for disclosure of any influential scientific information. amendment will also require agencies to offer an explanation if they revise the anticipated public release date of peer reviews. simply put, the federal agency will nor longer be able to shield from the -- will no longer be able to shield from the public view the information that's evaluating a proposed

rule. we cannot continue to allow the federal agencies to march toward a predetermined outcome at the expense of sound science and policy. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. tonko: mr. chair, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: with that i thank you, mr. chair. i oppose this amendment which requires an agency publish a list of scientific information related to a rule or expected to relate to the rule for each rule that an agency expects to propose for the following year. i am concerned that this amendment would create unintended consequences and operate as a one-way ratchet to slow down and stop the rulemaking process by requiring the burdensome disclosures and creating options for procedural gridlock. agencies are already required to publish relevant data in support of a rule during these rulemaking processes. rules that do not appear to be

based on a reasoned analysis of relevant data may be vacated by reviewing courts as arbitrary or capricious. moreover, data required through federally funded research is already accessible to researchers who have a legitimate purpose. i am also concerned that the -- that because this amendment does not clarify the scope of this publication requirement, peer reviewed materials may be taken out of context or otherwise misused for political purposes. in so doing, this requirement may chill feedback in the scientific community, undermine agencies' ability to adopt the best rules possible or otherwise manufacture delays in the rulemaking process. any additional requirements in this area should strengthen rather than weaken the process of science-based rulemaking. given these concerns, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and with that, mr. chair, i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. posey: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. posey: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, most members of the public don't know what a rule is. rules are laws made by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. we collected four years worth of daily registers in my office. those are executive orders, rules, proposed rules, changes to rules and i asked people how big they think the stack is and i get four feet, six feet, seven feet. well, it was seven stacks over my head. over 70 linear feet of laws made by unelected, unaccountable people. now, the public thinks we make the laws. most of the laws we don't make. we allow unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make the laws, and the very least we can do to protect the public is ensure that we have transparency and accountability for their procedures and that's

exactly what this amendment does. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman has the remainder of the time. the gentleman has one minute left. mr. posey: i'll close. mr. chairman, before i close i'd like to submit for the record a letter from a leading policy research institution that highlights the need for legislation like my amendment that will improve the public peer review process in our federal agencies. as the letter states, no presumption of scientific legitimacy can be afforded when making good public policy. unfortunately, many administrative agencies make those assumptions and don't take seriously the peer review process. for that reason i once again urge my colleagues to support this good government proposal for transparency and accountability that will help protect the integrity of the federal rulemaking process. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's

request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proed seedings will resume on -- proceedings will resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. goodlatte of virginia, amendment number 5 by mr. peterson of minnesota, amendment number 8 by ms. castor of florida, amendment number 9 by mr. cicilline of rhode island, amendment number 10 by mr. johnson of georgia, amendment number 11 by mr. ruiz of california, amendment number 12 by mr. scott of virginia, amendment number 13 by mr. tonko of new york, amendment number 14 by mr. grijalva of arizona. 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 1 printed in part a of house report 115-2 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. clerk. -- the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. goodlatte 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 will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 237 and the nays are 185. adopted. ent is the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 115-2 by

the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. peterson of minnesota. 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 will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 260 and the nays are 161. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in part a of the house report 115-2 by the gentleman from florida, ms. castor -- the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, 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 8 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by ms. castor of florida. 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 will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning

institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]