Providing for Consideration of H.R. 527, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 50, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 78 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, and H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
Mr. Speaker, every year bureaucrats in Washington impose thousands of regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. Those mandates can be costly, stretching city and State budgets and making it harder for American businesses to hire.
The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, H.R. 50, will ensure that the people who write these regulations in Washington know exactly what they are asking the American people to pay and whether the cost of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat.
H.R. 50 will force Washington to think carefully about regulatory costs before it passes them on to Americans. This bill is about transparency and accountability and is something Democrats and Republicans can all support.
In 1995, Congress passed the bipartisan Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, legislation designed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing unfunded mandates onto State and local governments or private businesses without policymakers or the public knowing the cost of such policies.
UMRA's main objective was to force the Federal Government to estimate how much unfunded mandates would cost local governments and businesses and rein in out-of-control mandates. UMRA ensured public awareness of the crushing financial burden of Federal mandates on employers and State and local governments. However, UMRA has not been amended since 1995, and some subtle changes are needed to preserve and improve on the Act's initial purposes.
UMRA was a good bill, but over time, some shortcomings became apparent such that the Clinton and, later, Obama administrations issued executive orders to fix the loopholes within it.
H.R. 50 has bipartisan DNA, Mr. Speaker. It codifies those administrative fixes championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and promotes good government, accountability, and transparency.
As a testament to this fact, the bill is cosponsored by two of my Democratic colleagues here in the House, Representatives Collin Peterson and Loretta Sanchez. I owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts in promoting this commonsense bill.
The text of H.R. 50 has passed the House on a bipartisan basis three times in the 112th and 113th Congresses. The bill most recently was favorably reported by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
A common refrain in this business is that ``nobody wants to see how the sausage is made,'' meaning that the process of drafting and passing legislation is so ugly that it would repulse people. In this case, I disagree.
I am extremely proud of this bill, and I am proud of the process by which it has been advanced in the House. I have had the pleasure of working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure, and I appreciate their support and counsel.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was a model for bipartisanship, and my hope is that this bill leaves a similar legacy. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of this aisle to support the rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for his kind comments about me and my health. I appreciate all condolences.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, which is important legislation to improve the Federal Government's treatment of small businesses.
Ensuring we are providing the best environment possible to small businesses is vital to support a sector which employs nearly half of America's private sector workers and generates 63 percent of new private sector jobs.
As a former owner of a nursery, I know well the joys and trials of running a small business, and I am pleased that the House is considering these vital provisions.
Small businesses do not have the staff or background to identify and comply with ever-growing piles of red tape. Federal regulations disproportionately impact small businesses which led Congress to enact the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to account better for the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small entities and to tailor regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities.
Unsurprisingly, agencies have failed to comply with these requirements in full. They have taken advantage of loopholes, failed to acknowledge the entirety of impacts for proposed rules, and issued rules that continue to harm small businesses. That failure necessitates our actions this week to consider H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.
This legislation requires Federal agencies to consider the potential ``economic impact'' of proposed rules on small businesses and nonprofits. It also mandates a 10-year plan to review all rules determined to have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
That will ensure past regulations will not remain on the books unexamined and able to burden small businesses for decades.
The legislation also expands ``regulatory flexibility analysis'' requirements which are currently used to explain the reasoning behind a proposed rule, identify duplicative rules, and explain any recordkeeping or other requirements that may be imposed on small businesses or other small entities.
It also requires the Small Business Administration's chief counsel for advocacy to develop interagency rules for conducting flexibility analyses.
These changes will ensure that future regulations are tailored to minimize their impact on small businesses. This will allow small businesses to spend more of their investments and time hiring new employees and growing their businesses rather than complying with unnecessary burdens from Federal regulations.
H.R. 527 is a simple, commonsense mandate for the executive branch to work together with small businesses and design smarter, less burdensome rules that work for the American people, and I commend it to my colleagues for their support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that Republicans are not opposed to regulations. We just want regulations to be done right.
These are modest reforms, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. Some of these changes merely codify executive orders issued by the last two Democrat Presidents.
Mr. Speaker, as proud as I am of this legislation, I realize its passage today won't be front-page news. I understand that ``Lawmakers Band Together to Close Technical Loopholes in UMRA'' isn't exactly a riveting headline. But what we are doing here is important.
In Congress, we often focus our energy and attention on those issues that are most divisive and controversial, and I understand that. There are real, substantive disagreements between the two parties and among the American people.
But Congress must do the hard things. Every now and then, we get an opportunity to do something easy. This should be easy. Reforms in this bill are low-hanging fruit.
Some of my colleagues have suggestions for improvement and have offered amendments to these bills. Great. I welcome their suggestions.
Those amendments will be discussed in an open and transparent process. Not a single proposed amendment to either bill, Democrat or Republican, has been excluded by this rule.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will join me in supporting these sensible bills that will enhance transparency, accountability, and awareness of Federal mandates and improve the Federal Government's treatment of small businesses.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 78 Offered by Mr. Polls of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:
Sec. 3. 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. 344) to provide for the establishment of a pilot program to encourage the employment of veterans in manufacturing positions. 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 Education and the Workforce. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 344.
--
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This 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. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. 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.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source