Providing for Consideration of H.R. Require Evaluation Before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Empowering Employees Through Stock Ownership Act; and Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 875 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 875

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3438) to amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the effective date of high-impact rules pending judicial review. 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 equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 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 the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in 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 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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5719) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the tax treatment of certain equity grants. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of September 22, 2016, or September 23, 2016, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3438, the Require Evaluation Before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act, or the REVIEW Act, and H.R. 5719, the Empowering Employees Through Stock Ownership Act.

For H.R. 3438, the rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and also provides for a motion to recommit. The rule also provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for H.R. 5719 and provides a motion, also, to recommit.

The rule makes in order two amendments to H.R. 3438, representing ideas from my colleagues across the aisle.

The REVIEW Act, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), went through regular order and enjoyed a thorough discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee level. In November of 2015, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, of which I am a member, held a legislative hearing on the bill. The bill was marked up by the Committee on the Judiciary on September 8, 2016. Several amendments were considered.

The Empowering Employees Through Stock Ownership Act also went through regular order. It was passed by voice vote through the Committee on Ways and Means on September 14. This bill, which has bipartisan support, would promote employee ownership at startup companies by addressing the tax treatment of restricted stock issued to employees.

Both bills represent good governance and provide relief for American workers and companies. The REVIEW Act is supported by numerous organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Builders and Contractors, Forestry Resource Association, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and dozens more.

I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation because it ensures that American businesses won't have to waste billions of dollars if legally flawed new rules are thrown out by the courts. The bill is just plain common sense.

This legislation came about in response to a very real problem. In Michigan v. EPA, the court held that the EPA's Utility MACT rule was legally infirm because the EPA decided costs were irrelevant to its decision to promulgate the rule. Costs of implementing the rule were estimated to cost $9.6 billion per year, with the intended goal of achieving benefits of only $4 million to $6 million per year.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Costs of implementing the rule were estimated to cost $9.6 billion per year, with the intended goal of achieving benefits of only $4 million to $6 million per year.

It seems that something like this would not be true. Unfortunately, it is. The EPA issued a rule estimated to cost more than $9 billion per year, even though the rule was expected to achieve benefits in airborne mercury emissions of $4 million to $6 million per year. The rule costs more than 10 times to implement than it brought in benefits.

Even away from the government perspective, there were questions concerning the actual other benefits as well. You wonder why people are angry at the Federal Government. Rules like this are a good example. Even worse, while the court found the rule legally infirm, it failed to set aside the rule which required businesses to continue to incur compliance costs, pending remand to the court of appeals.

This rule was not stayed by the courts during a multiyear legal battle to challenge the rule, meaning the whole time the courts were deliberating, businesses were forced to start implementing the rule and bear the costs. This is a huge blow to businesses that had to pour time and money into compliance only to later be told it was a wasted effort because the legal challenge to the rule was ultimately successful.

To be sure, the successful legal challenge was a victory, but businesses shouldn't have had to go through years of uncertainty and billions of wasted dollars while the challenge was pending in the courts.

The REVIEW Act makes sense. It prevents needless expenditures like the ones businesses were forced to make while the Utility MACT case was winding its way through the courts.

You see, the fix is simple. The REVIEW Act requires that, when agencies promulgate new rules, the rules won't become legally effective until after the conclusion of litigation challenging them if the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines the rules would impose $1 billion or more in costs to the economy. Litigants would have up to 60 days after the rule was published to bring litigation, unless specified otherwise by the particular law the agency rule pertains to.

Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. We aren't talking about this kind of change for every rule. We are not talking about this kind of change even for every major rule. We are talking about making this commonsense amendment for rules that cost over $1 billion to the economy.

Businesses shouldn't be forced to deal with these enormous compliance costs while it is unclear if the rule will ever even actually come to fruition. The time and money businesses are currently forced to spend complying with these rules is time and money taken away from building the businesses, investing in the community, and creating jobs.

Now, I will admit these billion-dollar rules have been issued by administrations of both parties in recent years. That is another reason why Members on both sides of the aisle should support this legislation.

According to the American Action Forum, in fact, from 2006 to 2008, the Nation averaged two of these rules annually; and from 2009 to present, the figure has actually increased to roughly three times per year. This increase in billion-dollar rules should be troubling to all of us, and businesses run by Republicans and Democrats are suffering from the effects of complying with these rules even as litigation is ongoing. Under this administration alone, these billion-dollar rules are estimated to have imposed total annual costs of $65.1 billion. According to the American Action Forum, the related paperwork burden comes out to be about 19.5 million hours.

Since 2005, there have been at least 34 billion-dollar rules, with 24 of those promulgated under the current administration. Thirty-four may not seem like a large number over the last 11 years, but we have to remember the extremely high cost of these results and the impact those costs can have on businesses and the economy.

There may be arguments from those on the other side that affected parties could receive a stay from the court during litigation, but stays are hard to obtain and the consequences of not obtaining one can be very costly.

During a Judiciary Committee hearing on the REVIEW Act, Paul Noe of the American Forest and Paper Association provided an enlightening example of the consequences of courts failing to issue stays as the billion-dollar rule goes forward.

He said in his testimony: ``In 2007, about $2 million in compliance investments were stranded in the paper and wood products industry when a court struck down the 2004 Boiler MACT rule just 3 months before the compliance deadline. When the rules were reissued in 2013, the new standards had changed significantly, and previous investments proved to be the wrong approaches to achieve compliance. Wasting limited capital undermines the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and impedes growth and job creation.''

Mr. Noe's example is another real-life circumstance of the reason this bill, the REVIEW Act, is necessary. The last thing we should be doing is impeding growth and job creation. Instead, we should be looking to stimulate the economy and getting Americans working.

I know in northeast Georgia, many businesses are struggling due to the crushing costs of regulations. Many of these are small businesses that aren't able to employ attorneys and consultants to keep them up- to-date with the latest edicts from Washington. Instead, they are forced to spend time and resources figuring out how to deal with the onslaught of red tape; and that doesn't even take into account the massive burdens of these billion-dollar regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that not all regulation is bad. Regulations can help protect public health and safety and ensure needed worker protections; but regulation that does not make sense, regulation that has compliance costs that far exceed the benefits, simply doesn't make sense.

Importantly, in this bill, we aren't trying to prevent more regulation. We are simply saying that, for rules over a billion dollars, they shouldn't go into effect until litigation has concluded. That is common sense. Businesses shouldn't have to waste resources complying with a huge, new burden for something that might not ever even come into effect.

This is a narrowly written but important change to the Administrative Procedure Act that will prevent waste and, hopefully, encourage agencies to rethink issuing billion-dollar rules.

This is a bill that had plenty of hearing in the Judiciary Committee, both sides expressing their desires on these issues, and had full debate and markup.

Both the REVIEW Act and the Empowering Employees through Stock Ownership Act are smart changes to current law that deserve full and fair consideration before this House.

I would just like to make one comment, and then I think my friend from Massachusetts and I can look around. Nobody is beating our door down for time here.

There are no billion-dollar public health issues that were brought up that this--it doesn't waive for a billion-dollar public health emergency. In fact, probably if we did have over-a-billion-dollar health emergency, we could handle it better through statutory change than through a regulatory agency doing this. So it is an argument, but it is not a valid argument, I believe, in this case.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I think we have made our case for the rule. I think it needs to be passed--also the underlying bills. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 875 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. 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 equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill 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. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076. ____ The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source