[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H123-H145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
      SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous remarks on H.R. 712.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 580 and rule

[[Page H124]]

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 712.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1316


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 712) to impose certain limitations on consent decrees and 
settlement agreements by agencies that require the agencies to take 
regulatory action in accordance with the terms thereof, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Bost in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for 
Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015. H.R. 712 includes H.R. 
1759, the All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act of 2015, or the 
ALERT Act, which the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
favorably reported on May 29, 2015.
  We have had some good pieces of legislation that made their way 
through the process, and we really do appreciate the great work of 
Congressman Ratcliffe.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe).
  Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sunshine for Regulatory 
Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015.
  I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Chairman Goodlatte for their 
hard work on this package of bills that will help push the government 
out of the way of the American people. I am especially grateful that 
the ALERT Act, which I introduced earlier this Congress, is included as 
title II of the bill.
  The constituents that I represent in northeast Texas work hard every 
day to provide for their families and to contribute to their 
communities. But I can tell you from countless conversations that they 
are fed up with a Federal Government that has been invading every 
aspect of their lives. They are frustrated with unaccountable, 
unelected bureaucrats who create regulations that have the force of 
law, regulations that typically appear out of nowhere and bring with 
them huge price tags for the cost of compliance, often with little time 
to prepare and implement them.
  In some cases, regulators are unforgiving to those who either can't 
or don't timely comply by imposing criminal penalties. Now, let's pause 
to think about that. Bureaucrats hammering otherwise law-abiding 
Americans with criminal penalties for regulatory violations at a time 
when the same administration is giving a free pass to millions of 
illegal aliens for breaking immigration laws, giving early release to 
tens of thousands of prisoners--violent criminals--and turning loose 
radical Islamic terrorists from Guantanamo. It is little wonder that my 
constituents are outraged.
  And if it were up to this administration, the problem would get 
worse, not better. To underscore that point, we need only look at the 
Federal Register where agencies publish their mandates. That document 
contained 82,000 pages last year, meaning that this administration 
averaged more than 224 pages of new regulations every day of the year.
  Americans have every right to demand to know what we are doing here 
in Congress to stop them from being crushed by this snowball of 
regulations.
  Part of the answer should be that current law requires an update 
twice a year on Federal regulations being developed by Federal 
agencies. But guess what. Under this administration, these updates have 
either been late or not issued at all, and until now, there hasn't been 
a way to hold these unelected bureaucrats accountable.
  My bill does just that. This bill forces the executive branch to make 
the American people aware of regulations that are coming down the 
track, and it prohibits any regulations from going into effect unless 
and until detailed information on the cost of that regulation--its 
impact on jobs and the legal bases for it--is made available to the 
public for at least 6 months.
  Predictably, the President and others argue that this bill is too 
tough on regulators. But do you know what? I am here to fight for 
hardworking Americans, not for unelected Washington bureaucrats.
  Mr. Chairman, ensuring that folks aren't steamrolled by new 
regulations should be a no-brainer. Transparency shouldn't be 
controversial, it shouldn't be optional, and it shouldn't be a partisan 
issue. That is why I was honored to introduce the ALERT Act and why I 
am grateful that it has been included in this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 712. This 
legislation represents yet another attack by House Republicans on 
critical public health, safety, and environmental protections. I oppose 
this unnecessary and potentially dangerous legislation in its entirety. 
However, I will focus my remarks today on title II of this bill, which 
is in the jurisdiction of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee.
  Title II, also known as the ALERT Act, is an attack on agency 
rulemaking that is inaccurately advertised as an effort to improve 
transparency. In fact, this bill explicitly prohibits the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs from taking into account benefits 
when providing estimated cumulative costs to proposed and final rules. 
That is not providing transparency. That is providing one side of the 
story.
  The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which represents over 150 good 
government, labor, scientific, and health organizations, sent a letter 
opposing the ALERT Act when it was marked up in the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee. The letter states:

  ``The requirements of the ALERT Act, which would delay important 
public protections and waste scarce government resources, fail to 
provide needed transparency improvements in the regulatory review 
process. Instead, the reporting requirements mandated under the ALERT 
Act would undermine transparency by generating cherry-picked data that 
seems calculated to provide a distorted picture of the U.S. regulatory 
system.''
  The bill would also prevent a rule from taking effect until certain 
information is posted online for at least 6 months. The only exceptions 
to this requirement would be if an agency exempts the rule from the 
notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or 
if the President issues an executive order. This is an unnecessary 
roadblock that jeopardizes public health and public safety.
  One example of a rule that would be affected by this bill is the 
recently published ATF regulation that closes a loophole that allowed 
individuals to avoid required background checks when purchasing some of 
the most dangerous weapons through trusts or legal entities. Under the 
bill, this rule could not take effect until certain information had 
been posted online by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
for 6 months. That is 6 months, that delay, in putting commonsense gun 
safety procedures in place and would delay them.
  Many of the disclosure requirements in this legislation are 
redundant. Agencies already publish regulatory plans twice a year. This 
bill would require agencies to provide monthly updates to

[[Page H125]]

their regulatory plans. This is unnecessarily burdensome and would 
require agencies to divert already scarce resources to comply.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 712.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins). He is the author and lead sponsor of the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of H.R. 
712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act.
  I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, who will be coming along 
shortly, as my chairman on the Judiciary Committee for his support and 
work, and the Judiciary Committee staff. I would also like to thank the 
chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, my friend, 
Mr. Chaffetz, a committee which I have served on that continues to do 
great work, along with the ranking member. It is good to be with you 
today.
  This is legislation--to me, especially H.R. 712--that addresses a 
problem and has been passed by the House on three separate occasions to 
address sue and settle practices that serve special interests at the 
expense of the American people. This is something I have been dealing 
with since I have been in Congress because it goes to the heart of what 
I have spoken to many times about the Republican majority and our 
interest in fairness and our interest in making the court system work 
for people.
  What this bill actually does is actually--the heart and the core of 
it--goes after sue and settle litigation, consent decrees, that are 
taken behind closed doors without, many times, those that are affected 
even having the ability to give input into those and then being 
affected by that.
  So, if I had a problem with someone and I couldn't resolve it, I 
would just go to the agency, such as the EPA or others who may have 
sympathetic leanings, and I say, ``You are not doing what you are 
supposed to be doing.'' I threaten to sue. We get behind closed doors. 
We settle something. The judge makes a consent order, and then I take 
it back to the areas that are affected, and they have no input into 
that. That is just not fair, inherently not fair.
  This bill simply is about transparency. To be against this bill is to 
be against transparency. To be against this legislation is to say that 
we believe it is okay to cut people out when they are affected.
  Just to let you know how this is affected, between 2009 and 2012, 71 
lawsuits were settled as sue and settle cases and directly led to the 
issuance of more than 100 new Federal Rules--100 new Federal Rules--out 
of consent decrees, including several with a compliance cost--listen to 
this. We want to talk about small business, we want to talk about local 
governments being burdened. Listen to this compliance cost: $100 
million in excess.
  This issue is not partisan. Cass Sunstein, President Obama's former 
regulatory czar, called the idea of reforming the sue and settle 
process excellent.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. He stated: ``In some cases, agencies don't 
really disagree but have refrained from acting in part because of 
political constraints.''
  He is right. Agencies use sue and settle to skirt potentially 
political issues.
  This is about fairness. This is about simplicity. This is a bill that 
is brought forward to take care of the American people and the 
burdensome regulations--not to stop it, but to simply get our country 
working again.

                                                  January 6, 2016.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     250 undersigned groups strongly support efforts by the House 
     of Representatives to make federal agencies more accountable 
     to the American public and improve the transparency of agency 
     actions. The federal rulemaking process was founded on 
     principles of open government and public participation.
       We are pleased, therefore, that the House is voting on a 
     comprehensive regulatory reform bill, H.R. 712, the 
     ``Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act,'' 
     which would take important steps to stop the abusive practice 
     known as ``sue and settle'' and give the public and affected 
     parties a greater ability to know about potential rulemakings 
     and to participate.
       H.R. 712 embodies several major principles of 
     accountability, transparency, and fairness, drawn directly 
     from three regulatory reform bills:
       Title I--the ``Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and 
     Settlements Act.'' Behind closed doors, organizations and 
     agencies enter into consent decrees or settlement agreements 
     compelling the agencies to issue rules on an expedited 
     timeframe. The states and the public are not given notice of 
     the lawsuits, nor do they have a meaningful voice in the 
     process, despite the adverse impact that rushed, sloppy 
     regulations have on them. This title would improve the ``sue 
     and settle'' process by requiring agencies to give early 
     notice and take public comment on proposed settlement 
     agreements obligating agencies to initiate a rulemaking or 
     take other action on a specified timetable. These settlement 
     agreements allow interest groups to commandeer an agency's 
     agenda and regulatory priorities. The bill would allow 
     affected parties to get notice of draft settlements and 
     provide some opportunity to participate.
       Title II--the ``All Economic Rules are Transparent (ALERT) 
     Act.'' This title would require agencies to disclose 
     rulemakings the agency plans to propose or finalize to OMB's 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA 
     would disseminate information about these planned rules to 
     the public, including their estimated costs and benefits.
       Title III--the ``Providing Accountability Through 
     Transparency Act.'' This title would require federal agencies 
     to notify the public of proposed rules each month by posting 
     a brief, plain-English summary of each proposed regulation on 
     regulations.gov.
       Taken together, these reforms would help Congress to 
     reassert control over federal regulatory agency actions that 
     have become opaque, unaccountable, and often unfair. Congress 
     must perform its critical role as overseer of the federal 
     agencies.
       The undersigned groups strongly support H.R. 712, the 
     ``Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act,'' and 
     its comprehensive approach to regulatory reform. We urge you 
     to pass this important bill.
           Sincerely,
       Alabama: Alabama Forestry Association, Business Council of 
     Alabama, Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce.
       Alaska: Alaska Chamber, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of 
     Commerce.
       Arizona: Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arizona 
     Mining Association, Gilbert Chamber of Commerce, Greater 
     Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Lake Havasu Area Chamber of 
     Commerce, Marana Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Metro Chamber.
       Arkansas: Arkansas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners 
     Association (AIPRO), Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, 
     Associated Industries of Arkansas.
       California: American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, 
     California Asphalt Pavement Association (CalAPA), California 
     Association of Boutique & Breakfast Inns, California Hotel & 
     Lodging Association, Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce, 
     Far West Equipment Dealers Association, Gateway Chambers 
     Alliance, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Milk 
     Producers Council, Motorcycle Industry Council, Orange County 
     Business Council, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling of California, San 
     Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, San Gabriel Valley 
     Economic Partnership.
       Colorado: Associated General Contractors of Colorado, 
     Colorado Business Roundtable, Colorado Timber Industry 
     Association, Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado, 
     Western Energy Alliance.
       Connecticut: Connecticut Business & Industry Association, 
     Gasoline & Automotive Service Dealers of America, Inc.
       Delaware: Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce & 
     Visitor Center.
       Florida: Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Chamber 
     of Commerce, Florida Transportation Builders' Association 
     Orlando, Inc.
       Georgia: Georgia Chamber, Georgia Mining Association, 
     Georgia Paper & Forest Products Association, Southeastern 
     Lumber Manufacturers Association.
       Idaho: Associated Logging Contractors, Inc.--Idaho, Idaho 
     Trucking Association.
       Illinois: American Foundry Society, Greater Oak Brook 
     Chamber of Commerce, ISSA--The Worldwide Cleaning Industry 
     Association, Land Improvement Contractors of America (LICA), 
     Mason Contractors Association of America, National Roofing 
     Contractors Association, Non-Ferrous Founders' Society, North 
     American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM), 
     North American Die Casting Association, Property Casualty 
     Insurers Association of America, STI/SPFA, The Illinois 
     Chamber of Commerce, Western DuPage Chamber of Commerce.
       Indiana: Indiana Cast Metals Association (INCMA), Indiana 
     Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Motor Truck Association.
       Iowa: Ames Chamber of Commerce, Mason City Chamber of 
     Commerce.
       Kansas: Kansas Chamber of Commerce.
       Kentucky: Greater Louisville Inc., Kentucky Chamber of 
     Commerce, Kentucky Coal Association, Kentucky Forest 
     Industries Association, Kentucky Petroleum Marketers 
     Association.
       Louisiana: Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce, Louisiana 
     Association of Business and Industry (LABI), Louisiana 
     Landowners Association, Louisiana Oil & Gas Association.

[[Page H126]]

       Maryland: Flexible Packaging Association, Maryland Asphalt 
     Association, Inc., National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
       Massachusetts: Metro South Chamber of Commerce.
       Michigan: AGC of Michigan, Associated Wire Rope 
     Fabricators, Foundry Association of Michigan, Michigan 
     Chamber of Commerce.
       Minnesota: Associated General Contractors of Minnesota, 
     Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce.
       Mississippi: Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and 
     Convenience Stores Association, Mississippi Propane Gas 
     Association.
       Missouri: Equipment Dealers Association, Missouri Chamber, 
     Missouri Grocers Association, Missouri Pest Management 
     Association, National Corn Growers Association, Western 
     Equipment Dealers Association.
       Montana: Billings Chamber of Commerce, Kalispell Chamber of 
     Commerce, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Montana Petroleum 
     Marketers & Convenience Store Association.
       Nebraska: Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, Nebraska Chamber of 
     Commerce & Industry.
       Nevada: Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce, The Chamber of 
     Reno, Sparks, and Northern Nevada.
       New Jersey: Morris County Chamber of Commerce, New Jersey 
     Business & Industry Association, New Jersey Motor Truck 
     Association, New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce.
       New Mexico: New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, New 
     Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.
       New York: Buffalo Niagara Partnership, North Country 
     Chamber of Commerce, Northeastern Retail Lumber Association.
       North Carolina: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers 
     Association, North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance.
       North Dakota: Bismarck-Mandan Chamber of Commerce, 
     Bismarck-Mandan Home Builders Association, Dickinson Area 
     Builders Association, Forx Builders Association, Greater 
     North Dakota Chamber, Home Builders Association of Fargo-
     Moorhead, Minot Association of Builders, North Dakota 
     Association of Builders, Williston Area Builders Association.
       Ohio: Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association, 
     Forging Industry Association, Heating, Air-Conditioning & 
     Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), Industrial 
     Fasteners Institute, National Tooling and Machining 
     Association, Ohio Cast Metals Association (OCMA), Ohio 
     Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Forestry Association, Ohio Trucking 
     Association, Precision Machined Products Association, 
     Precision Metalforming Association, Youngstown/Warren 
     Regional Chamber.
       Oklahoma: Gas Processors Association, Greater Oklahoma City 
     Chamber, Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, The 
     State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber.
       Oregon: Associated Oregon Industries, Associated Oregon 
     Loggers, Inc., Klamath County Chamber of Commerce, Oregon 
     Retail Council, Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce, The 
     Chamber of Medford/Jackson County.
       Pennsylvania: Chester County Chamber of Business & 
     Industry, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, 
     Pennsylvania Forest Products Association, Pennsylvania 
     Foundry Association, Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas 
     Association, Printing Industries of America, Schuylkill 
     Chamber of Commerce, The Pennsylvania Corn Growers 
     Association Inc.
       South Carolina: Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, 
     Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, North Myrtle Beach 
     Chamber of Commerce, CVB South Carolina Timber Producers 
     Association.
       South Dakota: Black Hills Forest Resource Association, 
     Intermountain Forest Association.
       Tennessee: Johnson City, TN Chamber of Commerce, National 
     Cotton Council, Tennessee Cattlemen's Association, Tennessee 
     Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Tennessee Paper Council.
       Texas: American Loggers Council, Consumer Energy Alliance, 
     Electronic Security Association (ESA), Laredo Chamber of 
     Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, McAllen Chamber of 
     Commerce, Texas Association of Business, Texas Cast Metals 
     Association, Texas Mining and Reclamation Association (TMRA), 
     Texas Wildlife Association.
       Utah: Salt Lake Chamber, Utah Mining Association.
       Virginia: American Composites Manufacturers Association, 
     American Feed Industry Association, American, Subcontractors 
     Association, Inc., American Trucking Associations, American 
     Wood Council, AMT--The Association For Manufacturing 
     Technology, Automotive Recyclers Association, Brick Industry 
     Association, Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT), 
     Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Global Cold Chain 
     Alliance. Independent Electrical Contractors, Meat Import 
     Council of America, National Association of Chemical 
     Distributors, National Association of Convenience Stores, 
     National Renderers Association, National Rural Electric 
     Cooperative Association, National Stone, Sand and Gravel 
     Association, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.
       Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Small Business 
     & Entrepreneurship Council, Truck Renting and Leasing 
     Association, Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Virginia Forest 
     Products Association.
       Washington: American Exploration & Mining Association, 
     Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce, Washington Cattle Feeders 
     Association, Washington Retail Association.
       Washington D.C.: Agricultural Retailers Association, 
     American Coatings Association, American Coke and Coal 
     Chemicals Institute, American Council of Engineering 
     Companies, American Forest & Paper Association, American Fuel 
     & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Highway Users 
     Alliance, American Iron and Steel Institute, American 
     Petroleum Institute, American Public Gas Association, 
     American Road & Transportation Builders Association, 
     Associated Builders and Contractors, Building Owners and 
     Managers Association (BOMA) International, Independent 
     Petroleum Association of America, Industrial Energy Consumers 
     of America, Industrial Minerals Association--North America, 
     Institute of Makers of Explosives, National Association of 
     Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National 
     Black Chamber of Commerce, National Council of Textile 
     Organizations, National Federation of Independent Business, 
     National Grain and Feed Association, National Industrial Sand 
     Association, National Lumber and Building Material Dealers 
     Association, National Mining Association, National Oilseed 
     Processors Association, North American Meat Institute, SPI: 
     The Plastics Industry Trade Association, Treated Wood 
     Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, United States Hide, Skin 
     and Leather Association, Vinyl Building Council, Vinyl 
     Institute, Window and Door Manufacturers Association.
       West Virginia: West Virginia Chamber, West Virginia Oil 
     Marketers and Grocers Association.
       Wisconsin: Greater Green Bay Chamber, Midwest Food 
     Processors Association, Wisconsin Cast Metals Association, 
     Wisconsin Grocers Association, Wisconsin Industrial Energy, 
     Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.
       Wyoming: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Wyoming Rural 
     Electric Association, Wyoming Stock Growers Association.
                                  ____

                                               Associated Builders


                                        and Contractors, Inc.,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2016.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of Associated Builders and 
     Contractors (ABC), a national construction industry trade 
     association with 70 chapters representing nearly 21,000 
     chapter members, I am writing in regard to the Sunshine for 
     Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act (H.R. 712) introduced 
     by Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA).
       ABC supports increased transparency and opportunities for 
     public feedback in situations where agencies promulgate 
     rulemakings via consent decrees and settlement agreements, 
     and opposes regulation through litigation. The Sunshine for 
     Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act (H.R. 712) would 
     promote enhanced openness and transparency in the regulatory 
     process by requiring early disclosure of proposed consent 
     decrees and regulatory settlements.
       The practice of regulation through litigation (or ``sue and 
     settle'' as it is sometimes described) is used and often 
     abused by advocacy groups in order to initiate rulemakings 
     when they feel federal agencies are not moving quickly enough 
     to draft and issue these policies. Organizations routinely 
     file lawsuits against federal agencies claiming they have not 
     satisfied particular regulatory requirements, at which point 
     agencies can opt to settle. When settlements are agreed to, 
     they often mandate that rulemakings go forward and frequently 
     establish arbitrary timeframes for completion--without 
     stakeholder review or public comment. These settlements are 
     agreed to behind closed doors and their details kept 
     confidential. Agencies release their rulemaking proposals for 
     public comment after the settlement has been agreed upon, but 
     this is often too late for adequate and meaningful feedback.
       H.R. 712 would require agencies to solicit public comment 
     prior to entering into a consent decree with courts, which 
     would provide affected parties proper notice of proposed 
     regulatory settlements, and would make it possible for 
     affected industries to participate in the actual settlement 
     negotiations.
       Thank you for your attention on this important matter and 
     we urge the House to pass the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees 
     and Settlements Act when it comes to the floor for a vote.
           Sincerely,
                                               Kristen Swearingen,
     Senior Director, Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                  Small Business &


                                     Entrepreneurship Council,

                                      Vienna, VA, January 4, 2016.
     Hon. Doug Collins,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Collins: On behalf of the Small 
     Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) and its 
     100,000 members, I am writing to express our strong support 
     for H.R. 712, the ``Sunshine and Regulatory Decrees and 
     Settlement Act of 2015.'' SBE Council is grateful for your 
     ongoing leadership in calling attention to and working to fix 
     the sue-and-settle game played by special interests groups 
     and federal government agencies. H.R. 712 is an important 
     solution that will lift the veil on a process that is unjust 
     and hurts small businesses.
       Americans feel disconnected from a regulatory process that 
     does not consider their

[[Page H127]]

     views or the real world impact of regulation. A recent survey 
     conducted by our Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) found 
     that 72% of Americans believe regulations are ``created in a 
     closed, secretive process,'' with 68% saying that federal 
     rules are created by ``out-of-touch'' people pushing a 
     political agenda. As is the case with ``sue-and-settle,'' 
     special interest groups conspire with federal agencies and 
     file lawsuits against them alleging that an action has been 
     unlawfully delayed or unreasonably withheld. In many cases, 
     the outcome of these legal actions--the ``settle''--is 
     excessive and unreasonable regulation.
       Small business owners and their employees are hardest hit 
     by these burdensome federal regulations, which, again, are 
     the end product of a closed, one-sided process. In a report 
     published by CRS, we document egregious ``sue-and-settle'' 
     cases and their costly outcomes. It is unconscionable that 
     federal agencies act in secret with the very special 
     interests that favor giving them more power.
       H.R. 712 would require federal agencies to publish and give 
     notice of these actions, and provide the public with more 
     rights in reviewing, participating in and commenting on them. 
     As such, H.R. 712 provides the openness, fairness and access 
     to the federal regulatory process that it currently lacks.
       SBE Council is again pleased to support you and your 
     colleagues in your efforts to advance this reform into law. 
     Thank you for your leadership, and support of small business 
     owners and entrepreneurs.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                       Industrial Energy Consumers


                                                   of America,

                                  Washington, DC, January 4, 2016.
     Re IECA Supports H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory 
         Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015.

     Hon. Doug Collins,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Collins: On behalf of the Industrial 
     Energy Consumers of America (IECA), we support passage of 
     H.R. 712, the ``Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and 
     Settlements Act of 2015.'' The legislation would take 
     important steps to stop the abusive practice known as ``sue 
     and settle'' and give the public and affected parties a 
     greater ability to know about potential rulemakings and to 
     participate. The bill would help Congress to reassert control 
     over federal regulatory agency actions that have become 
     opaque, unaccountable, and often unfair. Congress must 
     perform its critical role as overseer of the federal 
     agencies.
       IECA is a nonpartisan association of leading manufacturing 
     companies with $1.0 trillion in annual sales, over 2,900 
     facilities nationwide, and with more than 1.4 million 
     employees worldwide. IECA membership represents a diverse set 
     of industries including: chemical, plastics, steel, iron ore, 
     aluminum, paper, food processing, fertilizer, insulation, 
     glass, industrial gases, pharmaceutical, building products, 
     brewing, automotive, independent oil refining, and cement.
       Mounting EPA regulatory costs and abuse of the legal system 
     through actions such as ``sue and settle'' have made it very 
     difficult for manufacturing companies to compete with global 
     competitors, thereby impacting U.S. jobs. For example, while 
     China's manufacturing jobs have increased by 31.5 percent 
     since 2000, U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined by 21.6 
     percent. Furthermore, the 2014 U.S. manufacturing trade 
     deficit stands at $524 billion and 70 percent of the deficit 
     is with one country, China.
       We thank you for your leadership on this important 
     legislation and look forward to working with you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul N. Cicio,
     President.
                                  ____

                                     American Fuel & Petrochemical


                                                Manufacturers,

                                  Washington, DC, January 7, 2016.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan: The American Fuel & Petrochemical 
     Manufacturers (AFPM) writes in support of H.R. 1155, the 
     Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily 
     Burdensome (SCRUB) Act of 2015, and H.R. 712, the Sunshine 
     for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015. AFPM is a 
     trade association representing high-tech American 
     manufacturers of virtually the entire U.S. supply of 
     gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, other fuels and home heating oil, 
     as well as the petrochemicals used as building blocks for 
     thousands of vital products in daily life. AFPM members make 
     modern life possible and keep America moving and growing as 
     they meet the needs of our nation and local communities, 
     strengthen economic and national security, and support 2 
     million American jobs.
       The U.S. is in the midst of an energy and manufacturing 
     renaissance that promises to increase our energy security and 
     create high quality jobs for years to come. AFPM members are 
     playing an important role in this renaissance as they 
     continue to invest billions of dollars in facility upgrades 
     needed to handle our increasing domestic production of oil 
     and natural gas. In addition to bolstering economic growth, 
     these investments ensure that American fuel and petrochemical 
     manufacturers can continue to provide consumers with ample 
     and affordable supplies of transportation fuels and other 
     vital products. America's energy and manufacturing 
     renaissance, however, is threatened by a maze of increasingly 
     costly and unworkable federal regulations. Indeed, domestic 
     manufactures face a total federal regulatory burden of at 
     least $1.88 trillion, jeopardizing their global 
     competitiveness and increasing costs to consumers.
       H.R. 1155 and 712 would improve our broken regulatory 
     process and mitigate some of the burdens on domestic 
     manufacturers. AFPM specifically welcomes the regulatory 
     ``cut-go'' provisions of H.R. 1155, which would create a 
     mechanism for getting excessively complex, costly, and 
     contradictory regulations under control. Additionally, H.R. 
     712 would significantly limit the growing abuses associated 
     with the ``sue-and-settle tactic'' deployed by certain 
     organizations.
       Meaningful reform is critical for our country. We 
     appreciate your leadership on this issue and urge the 
     immediate passage of H.R. 1155 and 712.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Chet Thompson,
     President.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                                  January 7, 2016.
       Dear Representatives: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in 
     the United States representing manufacturers in every 
     industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to support 
     H.R. 712, Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act 
     of 2015, introduced by Representative Doug Collins (R-GA).
       Manufacturers and other stakeholders are often subject to 
     significant federal regulatory actions mandated through 
     consent decrees and settlement agreements. However, the 
     public can be excluded from the promulgation of rules as 
     agencies and litigants negotiate behind closed doors, 
     determining when and how regulators must act.
       Public participation and transparency in the regulatory 
     process is a universal principle of sound rulemaking. H.R. 
     712 would enhance the regulatory process by increasing public 
     participation in shaping rules before they are proposed. The 
     bill would require agencies to provide timely and more 
     relevant information to the public of lawsuits attempting to 
     force regulatory action and to publish proposed consent 
     decrees or regulatory settlements. Importantly, H.R. 712 
     would require agencies to consider public comments prior to 
     entry of consent decrees or settlement agreements with the 
     court.
       Agency actions to develop significant regulations without 
     public participation contradict the sound regulatory 
     principles that are the foundation of our regulatory system 
     and ensure fairness and due process for all affected 
     entities. H.R. 712 would provide necessary transparency to 
     the rulemaking process and preserve the ability of the public 
     to engage with their government.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes on H.R. 712, including procedural motions, may be 
     considered for designation as Key Manufacturing Votes in the 
     114th Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                                Aric Newhouse,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                  Policy and Government Relations.

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, 
my friend from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  I join the ranking member in opposing the so-called Sunshine for 
Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. Specifically, we take exception 
to the inclusion of the so-called All Economic Regulations are 
Transparent Act that would unnecessarily require agencies to provide 
monthly status updates on their plans to propose and finalize rules 
when they are already required to report twice a year.
  Further, this legislation would prohibit agency rules from taking 
effect until the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
posted certain information online for at least 6 months. So an agency 
might post, on its own, information about the cost of a proposed rule 
for a year, but if OIRA doesn't post the information for at least 6 
months, the agency would be prohibited from moving forward.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings and I have an amendment that 
will be considered shortly to strike the 6-month online posting 
requirement. Striking that provision would keep important agency rules 
protecting public health and safety from being needlessly delayed.
  We have a Second Amendment that would exempt independent agencies. 
The bill as currently drafted would require agencies, such as the SEC 
and the

[[Page H128]]

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to abide by these new reporting 
requirements. Of course, these and other related agencies are not 
required to submit their rules for such reviews precisely because they 
are independent agencies and are intended as such.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Cummings-Connolly amendments, as 
well as the amendment offered by Mr. Lynch that would require Federal 
agencies to provide an estimate of the benefits, as well as the costs, 
of proposed regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill may be couched in the guise of improving 
transparency, but let's be honest, its real intent is to erect barriers 
and significantly delay the regulatory process that protects the 
American people.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Last Congress, the ALERT Act--which is part of this bill now--passed 
the House twice with bipartisan support. Put simply, the ALERT Act 
provides regulatory transparency requiring Federal agencies to provide 
monthly updates on regulation expected to be implemented in the next 
year.
  That shouldn't be controversial. As the bill's author, Mr. Ratcliffe, 
indicated, transparency should not be a heavy lift. That is what we are 
trying to provide. But that transparency is lacking. If you talk to 
small businesses and large businesses, you talk to citizens, you talk 
to advocacy groups, they will all tell you to one degree or another 
that this is not necessarily crystal clear. They have had this problem 
and challenge. The Obama administration has shown a troubling tendency 
to minimize the amount of public attention.
  The Fall 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations, a document 
disclosing regulations currently under consideration by Federal 
agencies, now contains more than 2,000 new regulations--2,000. By the 
administration's own estimates, 144 of those regulations are expected 
to cost the public more than $100 million each--each. Not just one--
each. You have got a universe of 2,000 regulations coming your way, 
America--144 of those are going to cost you about $100 million apiece, 
and you don't even know what they are. We don't necessarily know what 
they are.
  That is why we think there should be disclosure. That is why they 
call it the ALERT Act. It keeps the public informed about what Federal 
regulators are doing in their name and how much the regulations cost.
  The bill requires the heads of Federal agencies to provide a monthly 
update, which is new. That seems reasonable. A monthly update to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with clear information 
about each rule. OIRA is then required to publicly disclose on the 
Internet both the monthly updates and the annual review identifying the 
costs of each regulation. That seems fair. It seems balanced. It seems 
easy to me.
  I appreciate Mr. Ratcliffe and the good work that he has done 
bringing this to our attention and fighting for it.
  I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 4 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Utah has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the second antiregulation bill the Republicans 
have brought to the floor in 2 days.
  Yesterday, we debated a bill that purported to cut bureaucracy by 
creating a $30 million commission.
  Today, we are debating a bill that purports to provide transparency 
but, in fact, decreases transparency.
  The bill directs the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to 
publish the total cost of all rules proposed or finalized without 
counting any of the offsetting benefits. That is not transparency. That 
is misinformation.
  The proponents of this bill want to focus exclusively on the costs of 
regulations because information about the benefits undercuts their 
narrative. The bill's focus on the costs alone ignores the enormous 
benefits that regulations can have. These benefits can be measured in 
terms of lives saved, injuries reduced, and even dollars gained.
  In fact, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs reported in 
October that the net annual benefits of major rules issued during the 
Obama administration from 2009 to 2014 is some $215 billion. Agency 
rules save lives, improve health and safety, and protect our financial 
markets.
  The provisions in this bill that would prevent rules from taking 
effect until certain information has been made available on the 
Internet for 6 months are an unnecessary and potentially dangerous 
roadblock. We don't need an arbitrary 6-month delay in putting in place 
rules--like high chair and crib safety standards--that protect our 
children.
  This bill is also unnecessarily burdensome. For example, this bill 
would require OIRA to provide a report on the number of rules and a 
list of each rule for which a resolution of disapproval was introduced 
in either the House or Senate under section 802 of the Congressional 
Review Act. Under this requirement, the legislative branch would be 
requiring the executive branch to report on the activities of the 
legislative branch. That is not transparency. That is a waste of agency 
resources.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In conclusion, with all due respect, to suggest that it would be 
overwhelming to produce cost estimates and put them up on the Internet 
on a monthly basis, we are asking for transparency, but imagine the 
burden that is also put on the American people. Some of these may be 
really good ones. They may be really good regulations. But there may be 
some that they haven't quite researched and that other companies, 
organizations, individuals, nonprofits, suddenly have to reconfigure 
for. That takes some time. They need to know that things are coming. 
That I think is a reasonable thing to do.
  I, again, appreciate what Mr. Ratcliffe has been championing. I would 
urge the passage of this bill and the underlying bill as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It has been years since Federal officials declared that the Great 
Recession had ended and recovery had begun. It has been years since the 
Obama administration took office, promising to deliver prosperity and 
security once more to our Nation.
  We are now approaching American voters' next choice of leadership for 
the United States. The Obama administration seeks to assure us that 
times are better and times are safer.
  Workers, small-business owners, and Main Street families across our 
Nation know better. America is still struggling to create enough new 
jobs and economic growth to produce the prosperity and security 
Americans need and deserve.
  Unless Washington relents from adding unnecessarily to the nearly $2 
trillion in annual costs that Federal regulation imposes on our 
economy, America's job creators and innovators will not be able to 
create the jobs and growth needed to produce a true new morning in 
America.
  Today's bill contains three measures sure to help remedy this 
situation.
  First, the bill offers strong reforms to attack a problem that lies 
behind many of the costliest new regulations Washington issues each 
year. That is the problem of sue and settle regulation.
  Time and again, new, high-cost regulations are issued under consent 
decrees and settlement agreements that force Federal agencies to issue 
new rules. These decrees and settlements stem from deals between 
regulatory agencies and pro-regulatory plaintiffs. The plaintiffs 
seeking regulations sue and the agencies seeking help to regulate 
settle, gaining the force of a judge's gavel to impose their will on 
the economy.
  Those to be regulated--our Nation's job creators--often do not know 
about these deals until the plaintiffs' complaints and the proposed 
decrees or settlements are filed in court. By then it is too late. 
Regulated businesses, state regulators, and other interested entities 
are unlikely to be able to intervene in the litigation. The court can

[[Page H129]]

approve the deals before regulated parties even have an opportunity to 
determine whether new regulatory costs will be imposed on them.
  Title I of today's legislation, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees 
and Settlements Act, brings this abusive practice to an end. It assures 
that those to be regulated have a fair opportunity to participate in 
the resolution of litigation that affects them. It ensures that courts 
have all of the information they need before they approve proposed 
decrees and settlements. And it provides needed transparency on the 
ways agencies conduct their business.
  Title II of the bill rests on the same principle of transparency. 
Even when new regulations are not forced upon them by judicial decree, 
Americans deserve to know what new regulations agencies plan to send 
their way. They deserve to know earlier and better what those new rules 
will look like, how much they will cost, and when they may be imposed.
  Armed with this information, America's small businesses and families 
will be in a better position to respond to agency plans with better and 
more timely comments on proposed regulations, and they will be better 
and more timely able to bring to Congress' attention concerns about 
planned regulation they believe is unnecessary, too costly, or 
ineffective.
  Title II of the bill, the ALERT Act, accomplishes just that. It 
reforms disclosure requirements for upcoming rules by requiring more 
details to be disclosed and by requiring the publication of monthly, 
online updates of information on the rules' schedules, costs, and 
economic effects, including jobs impacts.
  Finally, title III of the bill, the Providing Accountability Through 
Transparency Act, helps to fix one of the most maddening things Main 
Street Americans and small-business owners across the Nation confront. 
Not only do Federal regulators issue too many regulations that cost too 
much, too often those regulations are impossible for an ordinary 
citizen to understand.
  Title III offers a welcome remedy by requiring each agency to publish 
an online, 100-word summary of any new proposed regulation.
  What a concept--state in clear, simple, and short terms for the 
American people just what Federal regulators propose to do. State it in 
terms that don't require help from a lawyer to understand. And state it 
online every time a new regulation is proposed.
  All of the legislation in this bill is sure to help Americans who are 
besieged and bewildered by the flood of new regulations flowing every 
day from Washington's regulatory bureaucracy.
  I thank Representatives Collins, Ratcliffe, and Luetkemeyer for 
introducing each piece of legislation the bill contains. I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 712, 
the Sunshine in Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act.
  This measure is comprised of three bills, each of which, from my 
perspective, is thoroughly flawed.
  To begin with, title I of this bill, consisting of the text of the 
Sunshine and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015, has a 
simple goal: to discourage the use of settlement agreements and consent 
decrees and to thereby prevent critical Federal regulatory actions from 
being implemented.

                              {time}  1345

  Title I accomplishes this goal by giving opponents of regulation 
multiple opportunities to stifle rulemaking. With respect to a civil 
action enforcing an agency's responsibility to undertake a regulatory 
action, such as to promulgate a rulemaking, title I essentially 
authorizes any third party who is affected by such regulatory action to 
intervene in that civil action, subject to rebuttal; to participate in 
settlement negotiations; and to submit public comments about a proposed 
consent decree or settlement agreement that agencies would then be 
required to respond to.
  In addition, title I mandates that agencies provide for public 
comment on a proposed consent decree, and it requires agencies to 
respond to all such comments before the consent decree can be entered 
in court.
  As a result, an agency would be forced to go through two public 
comment periods, one for the consent decree and one for the rulemaking 
that results from the consent decree, doubling the agency's effort and 
time before a regulation could be finalized.
  Like nearly all of the anti-regulatory bills we have considered to 
date over the last two Congresses, this measure piles on procedural 
requirements for agencies and courts.
  By delaying regulatory protections, title I jeopardizes public health 
and safety. This explains why a broad consortium of more than 150 
organizations strenuously opposes this measure. These organizations 
include the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Civil 
Liberties Union, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and Earthjustice, among 
other groups.
  Title II of H.R. 712 consists of the text of H.R. 1759, the All 
Economic Regulations are Transparent Act of 2015, or the ALERT Act of 
2015. This measure would impose an arbitrary 6-month delay before 
virtually any new rule could go into effect with only limited 
exceptions.
  Clearly, the bill fails to take into account a vast array of time-
sensitive rules, ranging from the mundane, such as the many United 
States Coast Guard bridge closing regulations, to particularly critical 
regulations that protect public health and safety.
  Another troubling aspect of title II is that it specifically 
prohibits the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs--the 
executive branch agency charged with policymaking for Federal 
regulatory agencies--from taking into account the benefits of 
regulations when providing total cost estimates for proposed and final 
rules. Thus, a regulation that costs only $1 but that results in $1 
billion in benefits would only be reported as costing $1. Such a 
misleading and unbalanced report could hardly promote transparency.
  Finally, title III, consisting of H.R. 690, the Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2015, would require a notice 
of proposed rulemaking that is published in the Federal Register to 
include an Internet link to a plain language, 100-word summary of the 
rule.
  As with the other provisions in H.R. 712, title III creates a further 
opportunity for opponents of regulation to slow down a proposed 
rulemaking, and rather than promoting transparency, title III could 
engender confusion about the substance of such rulemaking.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, on multiple occasions before, I have 
discussed the overwhelming burden of the regulatory state on American 
workers and employers. For the past year, it has been my primary 
objective, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, 
Commercial and Antitrust Law, to bring to light these burdens and their 
true costs on the lives of all Americans.
  The burden of Federal regulations already amounts to 21 percent of 
the average company's payroll. How can employers plan for the future 
when the specter of new regulations, meaning additional costs, hangs 
over their planning? The regulatory process itself and some current 
government practices make this more difficult.
  These bills are critical as we work to improve the regulatory process 
and to prevent misguided and damaging regulatory overreach. These 
pieces of legislation grant clarity and transparency to the regulatory 
process.
  I spent the first part of my life working my way up the chain in 
manufacturing. I worked in a factory. When I became a manager, I saw 
the complex considerations that went into hiring, expansion, and 
whether we could keep the lights on.
  We did not have a crystal ball to help us there. We had to look at 
our revenues and at our costs and make assumptions for the future. And, 
yes, current and future regulations played a role there, too.

[[Page H130]]

  That was over 30 years ago. Now the regulatory state and the burdens 
on business operators and on those who try to go into business have 
grown by frightening magnitudes.
  This bill's sue and settle legislation will ensure that regulators 
and outside groups can no longer conspire to change or to implement 
regulations in secret or through judicial decree.
  The transparency provisions of the ALERT Act reinforce these measures 
by mandating more frequent and detailed disclosures that will allow 
businesses to anticipate the hurdles they will face down the road.
  To those Members who introduced these pieces of legislation, I thank 
them for their attention and effort in lessening the regulatory burdens 
on all Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015.
  Rather than bringing sunshine into the rulemaking process, it throws 
an after-midnight shade on this process. In fact, the Sunshine for 
Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act pulls the plug on regulations 
that are in place to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the 
people.
  This misnomered legislation should be renamed the ``Bedtime for 
Consent Decrees and Settlements Act.'' Another great name is the 
``Leave Volkswagen Alone Act.''
  Title I of H.R. 712 imposes numerous burdensome procedural 
requirements on agencies and courts, requirements that are designed to 
hamstring and to ultimately prevent the use of consent decrees and 
settlements that ensure the enforcement of the law.
  Proponents of this provision argue that it is necessary because 
Federal agencies collude with pro-regulatory plaintiffs to advance a 
mutually agreed-upon regulatory agenda through the use of consent 
decrees and settlement agreements.
  According to my Republican colleagues, this so-called sue and settle 
litigation specifically allows agencies to skirt the requirements of 
the Administrative Procedure Act to dictate the contents of an agency 
rulemaking or to bind agency action. Sadly, however, the majority has 
not put forth a single dust particle of credible evidence to support 
this claim.
  To the contrary, consent decrees and settlement agreements are 
important tools in ensuring the timely compliance with statutory 
deadlines that have been put in place by Congress to protect the 
environment and the public's health and safety.
  In fact, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, reported in 
December of 2014 that there is zero evidence indicating that agencies 
collude with public interest groups in bringing these consent decrees, 
as the majority has often alleged.
  In its report, the GAO referred to these lawsuits as ``deadline 
suits'' because they simply compel agencies to take statutorily 
required actions within a designated timeframe.
  The GAO also found little evidence that deadline suits determine the 
substantive outcome of agency action because agency officials stated 
that they have not and would never agree to settlements in a deadline 
suit that finalize the substantive outcome of the rulemaking or declare 
the substance of the final rule.
  Earlier this year, Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate for 
Public Citizen, also clarified during the legislative hearing on H.R. 
712: ``All of the settlements scrutinized by GAO pursuant to the EPA's 
rulemaking authority under the Clean Air Act went through the public 
notice and comment process, allowing all members of the public an 
opportunity to comment on the rule before it is finalized.''
  This finding confirms that there is no credible evidence supporting 
the proposition that Federal agencies engage in backroom deals with 
pro-regulatory groups in order to circumvent the EPA or to 
substantively bind the Agency in a subsequent rulemaking.
  In the absence of actual evidence of collusion between Federal 
agencies and plaintiffs, H.R. 712 addresses a nonexistent problem 
through a series of requirements that are designed to undermine the 
rule of law by preventing the enforcement of statutes that have been 
passed by Congress to protect the public and that are designed to slow 
down agency action and bust the door wide open to almost anyone who 
wants to impede agency action by intervening in these actions.
  Now, is it the working people, small-business owners, or retirees who 
are asking for this kind of relief from regulations that protect the 
health, safety, and well-being of them? No. It is not the people. It is 
the big corporations that want this legislation to pass.
  For example, H.R. 712 would allow for nearly any private party to 
intervene in a consent decree, revealing the legislation's true 
purpose, which is to stack the deck in the industry's favor in order to 
avoid the enforcement of the law.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the only reason for the 
unprecedented delay in agency rulemaking--the so-called diminishing 
transparency of the regulatory process--is that my Republican 
colleagues have argued that regulatory transparency is not important 
with regard to public participation in the rulemaking process.
  In a recent rulemaking process, millions of Americans commented on a 
single proposed rulemaking. It represented the largest public response 
in history to any request for public comment in a Federal rulemaking. 
Just last year alone, this extensive activity hardly suggests an agency 
process that is shrouded in secrecy and in need of reform.

                              {time}  1400

  So with there being no evidence that consent decrees and settlements 
are collusion between Federal agencies and pro-human interest groups, 
there simply is no need for this legislation.
  I would ask my colleagues to vote against this, to vote it down.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is one of the chief sponsors of this 
legislation.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for working 
with us on this piece of legislation.
  If there is one thing that I hear most often from my constituents, it 
is the onslaught of Federal regulations to keep up, let alone 
interpret. Our constituents should not need a law degree or employ an 
army of consultants and accountants to understand the rules they are 
required to follow. Unfortunately, they do, which is why I am pleased 
the legislation we consider today addresses the lack of regulatory 
transparency and accountability.
  Title III of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and 
Settlements Act of 2015, includes language from a bill that I 
introduced earlier this Congress. That bill, the Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act, provides a bipartisan and 
commonsense reform to afford the American people straightforward and 
comprehensive access to rules proposed by our executive branch.
  Since enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946, Federal 
agencies have been required to keep the public informed of proposed 
rules and regulations. This law has provided an avenue for the public 
to access rules and regulations drafted across government agencies. 
Nevertheless, given their technical nature, it can be extremely 
difficult to fully understand proposals unless one is an expert in that 
field.
  To help address this issue and promote government transparency and 
accessibility, title III of the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and 
Settlements Act of 2015 will require each Federal agency, when 
providing notice of a proposed rulemaking, to produce a Web link to a 
100-word, plain-language summary of the proposal. Accordingly, this 
requirement will provide access to regulations in a more clear and 
consistent manner.
  Moreover, this reasonable proposal has already proven its 
effectiveness in my home State of Missouri. After hearing from local 
school districts and administrators struggling to implement State 
regulations for Common Core, the State enacted a measure requiring

[[Page H131]]

each agency to provide online-accessible, plain-language summaries of 
proposed State regulations. Since enactment, the statute has been an 
exceptional resource for Missouri localities, schools, organizations, 
and citizens. I think it would be just the same here for us here at the 
Federal level as well.
  Just by looking at the daily copy of the Federal Register, which I 
just happen to have here from Monday, December 28, it is a 519-page 
copy.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Dold). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARINO. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I thank the gentleman for the additional time.
  Basically, we have got 518 rules in one day, 18 pages of rules in one 
day. I think it is important that our citizens have access to these 
rules in a way that they can understand and a form they can access.
  I certainly urge its support. I thank the good chairman for his hard 
work on H.R. 712.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, my main concern with this bill is the 
provision that would prevent a new regulation from taking effect until 
it has been available online for at least 6 months after the already 
exhaustive public notice and comment period that is required of new 
regulations. This may be a well-intended procedure, but it could 
potentially harm the very people that are in need of protection under 
some of the rules being promulgated.
  I know there is an exemption that may relate to health and safety 
that could include a Presidential action, but it requires us to know of 
an impending threat in order for that procedure to be utilized.
  I am thinking about what happened in my own hometown of Flint, 
Michigan, where people cannot wait 6 months for the Lead and Copper 
Rule, for example, which is under review right now, to be modified. Due 
to mismanagement by the State government and the weakness in the Safe 
Drinking Water Act's Lead and Copper Rule, thousands of children in 
Flint, Michigan, have been exposed to dangerous lead. Lead exposure is 
not good for anyone, but it is particularly dangerous for young 
children.
  According to the CDC, lead exposure is one of the most dangerous 
neurotoxins. It has wide-ranging impacts affecting IQ. There are 
behavioral implications. There are developmental implications for the 
central nervous system.
  It is heartbreaking, then, to see, as a result of the failure to 
adequately supply support in regulation to drinking water programs, 
that levels of lead in my own hometown have poisoned children. Changes 
to the Lead and Copper Rule, which I have participated in and are 
underway right now, could have prevented this. Right now, as a matter 
of fact, those changes are pending.
  If this legislation is passed, basically what we are saying to the 
people of Flint and other potential communities that could have lead 
exposure is that we have to wait another 6 months for that protection, 
6 more months potentially of dangerous lead leaching into the pipes, 
going into the bodies of young children.
  This notion that regulation is always wrong and always bad--I know 
that is not the position that is taken--but the effect of this 
legislation would be to slow down the regulatory process, very often 
regulations that need to be changed, need to be adjusted to provide 
essential protections to public health.
  The notion that we are supposed to somehow know that an imminent 
threat is present and allow this expedited process that is anticipated 
in this legislation belies logic. They didn't know, until after blood 
levels showed increased lead levels in children, that such a problem 
existed.
  When we know that there are necessary changes, when the EPA, through 
its process, as they have done with the Lead and Copper Rule, know that 
there are ways to improve the protection to kids, we ought to implement 
those regulations as soon as we possibly can.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, right now there is probably a group 
of folks down the street at a large oak table in a marble palace, 
nibbling on their $16 Federal muffins, drinking their lattes, typing on 
their new iPads regulations. They are the regulators. The very term 
brings fear and trepidation into the hearts of people who work for a 
living.
  Meanwhile, 14 million Americans are sitting at their old kitchen 
table, drinking coffee from their Mr. Coffee pot with no job on the 
horizon.
  Small-business owners constantly say that complying with government 
regulations is the biggest economic problem they face, even more so 
than the Federal income tax. Bear in mind that we have the highest 
corporate income tax in the world.
  Some businesses pack up their bags and even move to places like 
China. Meanwhile, the U.S. regulators are putting businesses out of 
business.
  Now, Congress created the regulators, so Congress needs to fix the 
problem with the regulators. H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory 
Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015, takes a number of commonsense 
approaches and puts a check on the regulators.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 175,000 pages of regulations. Do you really 
think we need that many regulations?
  One of the most important provisions of this bill is it will require 
the executive branch to make semiannual and annual disclosures about 
planned regulations.
  A lot of times, the regulators don't have any idea of the economic 
costs of their decisions and what they will have on the American 
economy. Many of them have never worked in private industry. They have 
never been to the States that they are trying to regulate. This bill 
will force the regulators to determine the cost of their actions before 
they take action.
  These disclosures will help American job creators so they can plan 
for the impacts of the new regulations on their budgets, hiring, and 
operations.
  I urge support of this logical piece of legislation. Congress needs 
to rein in and regulate the regulators.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of 
the Small Business Subcommittee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill 
and commend my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for his leadership 
on this very important issue.
  We all know that small businesses are the foundation of our economy, 
creating 7 out of every 10 new jobs in the American economy. That is 
how many jobs are created by small businesses
  Mr. Chairman, we also hear from small businesses from all over 
America, from our own congressional districts, that new and old 
regulatory burdens continue to make it more difficult for them to 
expand, grow, and create more jobs.
  The Constitution gives us the duty in the House of Representatives to 
provide for the general welfare. If we allow this scheme of sue and 
settle litigation to continue suppressing economic and job growth, we 
are not doing our duty.
  What is this sue and settle that we are talking about? Well, very 
quickly, it refers to when a Federal agency agrees to a settlement 
agreement in a lawsuit from special interest groups, oftentimes groups 
on the left, to create priorities and rules outside of the normal 
rulemaking process. The agency intentionally relinquishes statutory 
discretion by committing to timelines and priorities that often realign 
agency duties.
  Now, when agencies enter into consent decrees or settlement 
agreements and agree to issue new regulations, the rulemaking process 
is shortchanged. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I am 
particularly concerned that agencies are not adequately analyzing the 
impacts of new rules on small businesses, as is required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. That is existing law. This results in 
unnecessary and costly regulatory burdens and disproportionately 
impacts small businesses, the job generators of this country.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

[[Page H132]]

  

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, when mankind first came upon 
this planet, I guess we were in caves and cavemen didn't have many 
rules. It was only the strong who survived. It was every man for 
himself. There were no morals about things, whether or not it is right 
or wrong. It is just a matter of your own personal survival. That was 
caveman thinking, and, unfortunately, we still have caveman thinking in 
the 21st century because we have a crowd that says that we should not 
have any rules of human conduct.
  Isn't it a fact that America is what it is now because of the rules 
that have been put in place to foster prosperity and freedom? That is 
what our government has done. It has been government of, by, and for 
the people.
  There has been a movement over the last 30, 40 years to turn people 
against government. This mantra is that government is too big, we don't 
need any rules to govern human conduct, let everything work itself out, 
and the free market system will make it rain for everybody.
  Well, we have seen, after 30, 40 years of practicing that free market 
way of thinking, that it doesn't work. Here we are still trying to cut 
the rules that guarantee the health, safety, and well-being of working 
people, of small business, of elderly people, and children.
  This is what this legislation is about, is gutting the rulemaking 
process. This is one of many attempts, incessant attempts, by my 
friends on the other side to try to cut government so that their 
friends in big business on Wall Street can make it rain for the rest of 
us. They don't make it rain for anybody but themselves. They put all of 
the profits in their pockets. They become billionaires. We have had a 
shift of wealth away from the middle class and working people in this 
country. Let's stop it from happening.
  Oppose this misguided legislation, H.R. 712.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and also the committee I am on, Natural Resources. This has 
been an ongoing issue, particularly in Natural Resources, when we come 
to the sue and settle situation.
  I appreciate my friend from Georgia pointing out that there are 
groups that don't want rules, that are just out for themselves. I, too, 
was against the Occupy Wall Street anarchy that was attempted.

                              {time}  1415

  I have never stood here in support of Wall Street. I fought the Wall 
Street bailout tooth and nail when friends on the other side of the 
aisle, many of them, were supporting it. Both sides of the aisle 
supported it. I am not standing here for Wall Street. I am standing 
here for fairness for American citizens across the country. That is 
what most people in both parties want. They want fairness.
  Here is a report that the tactic of sue and settle ``reached a zenith 
in Fish and Wildlife's 2011 mega-settlement with the Center for 
Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and other green groups over 
the species act. That agreement allowed Fish and Wildlife to claim it 
must take action on some 750 species covered by 85 legal actions. The 
deal's immediate effect was to tee up 250 species for full protection, 
including sweeping `critical habitat' designations that will restrict 
commercial or other use of millions of acres of private property.''
  The problem is, when the judicial system is abused, and as a former 
litigator, judge, and chief justice, I know when litigants come before 
the court and they say, ``We have reached an agreement, and here it 
is,'' then the judge's hands are normally tied, sign off on the 
agreement; but when it is a sympathetic group wanting to take away 
private property rights from private property owners, when they 
themselves have done nothing to produce or make that land profitable, 
to do so unfairly without proper notice by going behind the landowner's 
back, filing a suit with a sympathetic agency like Fish and Wildlife, 
having the agreed judgment signed, and then all of a sudden the most 
affected people were not given notice, they have their property rights 
taken away.
  I realize there were groups like Occupy Wall Street that don't want 
anybody having private property rights. Look, the Pilgrims tried it. It 
doesn't work when you just have a socialist system, share and share 
alike, because when you pay people the same thing to work and not work, 
then eventually people quit working.
  This bill is about fairness. What is wrong with giving notice to all 
of the people involved and letting them participate? That is the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Members, H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and 
Settlements Act, would establish a 6-month moratorium on new 
regulations, with limited exception, significantly delaying the 
rulemaking process by which agencies ensure that Americans are 
protected from serious harm, such as dirty air and water and unsafe 
products and reckless behavior by large financial institutions.
  Not surprisingly, the White House has already issued a strong veto 
threat. The administration warns that H.R. 712 would undermine critical 
public health and safety protections, introduce needless complexity and 
uncertainty in agency decisionmaking, and interfere with agency 
performance statutory mandates.
  There is simply no basis to support this ill-conceived legislation. 
Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
join me in opposing H.R. 712.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that 
this bill will make it too hard for Washington bureaucrats to regulate 
and too cumbersome for Washington agencies to tell the American people 
what the agencies are up to. You might say they are claiming that this 
bill creates so much sunshine on our new regulations that Washington's 
regulators will get sunburned if the bill is enacted.
  In the Obama administration's pen and phone era of encroaching on 
Americans' liberties, that much new sunshine is a good thing. In the 
Obama administration's era of regulatory dictates that crush new jobs 
and prevent higher wages, the new sunshine is desperately needed.
  A central reason why the Obama administration has failed to deliver 
prosperity and security to our Nation is the administration's 
unprecedented avalanche of new and costly regulations. This regulatory 
onslaught is the big reason why we have just concluded 8 years of zero 
real wage growth for America's workers and families. It is a critical 
reason why 94 million Americans above the age of 16 are out of the 
workforce. It is an unmistakable reason why we are still missing the 
almost 6 million more new jobs Americans would have had if the so-
called Obama recovery had just been as strong as the average recovery 
since World War II.
  This bill combats the Obama administration's regulatory assault on 
jobs and wages with commonsense measures we all should support. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill to help deliver new 
jobs and better wages to America's workers and families.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition 
to H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. 
Rather than a good-faith effort to improve our regulatory process, this 
bill would add unworkable new requirements on federal agencies that 
could impede critical efforts to safeguard public health, the 
environment, and other national priorities.
  I was pleased, however, that this bill includes provisions from the 
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act (H.R. 690), which I 
introduced with my colleague Rep. Luetkemeyer. This bipartisan proposal 
would ensure that new federal rules include a brief, plain-language 
summary so that the public can better understand the proposed action. 
While I cannot support H.R. 712, I hope that we can continue to work 
across the aisle on this commonsense initiative that will enhance 
public understanding of important federal efforts in public health, 
consumer rights, environmental protection, and other areas.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.

[[Page H133]]

  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 114-37. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 712

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled.

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sunshine for Regulations and 
     Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

        TITLE I--SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Consent decree and settlement reform.
Sec. 104. Motions to modify consent decrees.
Sec. 105. Effective date.

           TITLE II--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Office of information and regulatory affairs publication of 
              information relating to rules.

        TITLE III--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Requirement to post a 100 word summary to regulations.gov.

        TITLE I--SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Sunshine for Regulations 
     and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title--
       (1) the terms ``agency'' and ``agency action'' have the 
     meanings given those terms under section 551 of title 5, 
     United States Code;
       (2) the term ``covered civil action'' means a civil 
     action--
       (A) seeking to compel agency action;
       (B) alleging that the agency is unlawfully withholding or 
     unreasonably delaying an agency action relating to a 
     regulatory action that would affect the rights of--
       (i) private persons other than the person bringing the 
     action; or
       (ii) a State, local, or tribal government; and
       (C) brought under--
       (i) chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code; or
       (ii) any other statute authorizing such an action;
       (3) the term ``covered consent decree'' means--
       (A) a consent decree entered into in a covered civil 
     action; and
       (B) any other consent decree that requires agency action 
     relating to a regulatory action that affects the rights of--
       (i) private persons other than the person bringing the 
     action; or
       (ii) a State, local, or tribal government;
       (4) the term ``covered consent decree or settlement 
     agreement'' means a covered consent decree and a covered 
     settlement agreement; and
       (5) the term ``covered settlement agreement'' means--
       (A) a settlement agreement entered into in a covered civil 
     action; and
       (B) any other settlement agreement that requires agency 
     action relating to a regulatory action that affects the 
     rights of--
       (i) private persons other than the person bringing the 
     action; or
       (ii) a State, local, or tribal government.

     SEC. 103. CONSENT DECREE AND SETTLEMENT REFORM.

       (a) Pleadings and Preliminary Matters.--
       (1) In general.--In any covered civil action, the agency 
     against which the covered civil action is brought shall 
     publish the notice of intent to sue and the complaint in a 
     readily accessible manner, including by making the notice of 
     intent to sue and the complaint available online not later 
     than 15 days after receiving service of the notice of intent 
     to sue or complaint, respectively.
       (2) Entry of a covered consent decree or settlement 
     agreement.--A party may not make a motion for entry of a 
     covered consent decree or to dismiss a civil action pursuant 
     to a covered settlement agreement until after the end of 
     proceedings in accordance with paragraph (1) and 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) of subsection (d) 
     or subsection (d)(3)(A), whichever is later.
       (b) Intervention.--
       (1) Rebuttable presumption.--In considering a motion to 
     intervene in a covered civil action or a civil action in 
     which a covered consent decree or settlement agreement has 
     been proposed that is filed by a person who alleges that the 
     agency action in dispute would affect the person, the court 
     shall presume, subject to rebuttal, that the interests of the 
     person would not be represented adequately by the existing 
     parties to the action.
       (2) State, local, and tribal governments.--In considering a 
     motion to intervene in a covered civil action or a civil 
     action in which a covered consent decree or settlement 
     agreement has been proposed that is filed by a State, local, 
     or tribal government, the court shall take due account of 
     whether the movant--
       (A) administers jointly with an agency that is a defendant 
     in the action the statutory provisions that give rise to the 
     regulatory action to which the action relates; or
       (B) administers an authority under State, local, or tribal 
     law that would be preempted by the regulatory action to which 
     the action relates.
       (c) Settlement Negotiations.--Efforts to settle a covered 
     civil action or otherwise reach an agreement on a covered 
     consent decree or settlement agreement shall--
       (1) be conducted pursuant to the mediation or alternative 
     dispute resolution program of the court or by a district 
     judge other than the presiding judge, magistrate judge, or 
     special master, as determined appropriate by the presiding 
     judge; and
       (2) include any party that intervenes in the action.
       (d) Publication of and Comment on Covered Consent Decrees 
     or Settlement Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days before the date on 
     which a covered consent decree or settlement agreement is 
     filed with a court, the agency seeking to enter the covered 
     consent decree or settlement agreement shall publish in the 
     Federal Register and online--
       (A) the proposed covered consent decree or settlement 
     agreement; and
       (B) a statement providing--
       (i) the statutory basis for the covered consent decree or 
     settlement agreement; and
       (ii) a description of the terms of the covered consent 
     decree or settlement agreement, including whether it provides 
     for the award of attorneys' fees or costs and, if so, the 
     basis for including the award.
       (2) Public comment.--
       (A) In general.--An agency seeking to enter a covered 
     consent decree or settlement agreement shall accept public 
     comment during the period described in paragraph (1) on any 
     issue relating to the matters alleged in the complaint in the 
     applicable civil action or addressed or affected by the 
     proposed covered consent decree or settlement agreement.
       (B) Response to comments.--An agency shall respond to any 
     comment received under subparagraph (A).
       (C) Submissions to court.--When moving that the court enter 
     a proposed covered consent decree or settlement agreement or 
     for dismissal pursuant to a proposed covered consent decree 
     or settlement agreement, an agency shall--
       (i) inform the court of the statutory basis for the 
     proposed covered consent decree or settlement agreement and 
     its terms;
       (ii) submit to the court a summary of the comments received 
     under subparagraph (A) and the response of the agency to the 
     comments;
       (iii) submit to the court a certified index of the 
     administrative record of the notice and comment proceeding; 
     and
       (iv) make the administrative record described in clause 
     (iii) fully accessible to the court.
       (D) Inclusion in record.--The court shall include in the 
     court record for a civil action the certified index of the 
     administrative record submitted by an agency under 
     subparagraph (C)(iii) and any documents listed in the index 
     which any party or amicus curiae appearing before the court 
     in the action submits to the court.
       (3) Public hearings permitted.--
       (A) In general.--After providing notice in the Federal 
     Register and online, an agency may hold a public hearing 
     regarding whether to enter into a proposed covered consent 
     decree or settlement agreement.
       (B) Record.--If an agency holds a public hearing under 
     subparagraph (A)--
       (i) the agency shall--

       (I) submit to the court a summary of the proceedings;
       (II) submit to the court a certified index of the hearing 
     record; and
       (III) provide access to the hearing record to the court; 
     and

       (ii) the full hearing record shall be included in the court 
     record.
       (4) Mandatory deadlines.--If a proposed covered consent 
     decree or settlement agreement requires an agency action by a 
     date certain, the agency shall, when moving for entry of the 
     covered consent decree or settlement agreement or dismissal 
     based on the covered consent decree or settlement agreement, 
     inform the court of--
       (A) any required regulatory action the agency has not taken 
     that the covered consent decree or settlement agreement does 
     not address;
       (B) how the covered consent decree or settlement agreement, 
     if approved, would affect the discharge of the duties 
     described in subparagraph (A); and
       (C) why the effects of the covered consent decree or 
     settlement agreement on the manner in which the agency 
     discharges its duties is in the public interest.
       (e) Submission by the Government.--
       (1) In general.--For any proposed covered consent decree or 
     settlement agreement that contains a term described in 
     paragraph (2), the Attorney General or, if the matter is 
     being litigated independently by an agency, the head of the 
     agency shall submit to the court a certification that the 
     Attorney General or head of the agency approves the proposed 
     covered consent decree or settlement agreement. The Attorney 
     General or head of the agency shall personally sign any 
     certification submitted under this paragraph.
       (2) Terms.--A term described in this paragraph is--
       (A) in the case of a covered consent decree, a term that--
       (i) converts into a nondiscretionary duty a discretionary 
     authority of an agency to propose, promulgate, revise, or 
     amend regulations;
       (ii) commits an agency to expend funds that have not been 
     appropriated and that have not been budgeted for the 
     regulatory action in question;
       (iii) commits an agency to seek a particular appropriation 
     or budget authorization;

[[Page H134]]

       (iv) divests an agency of discretion committed to the 
     agency by statute or the Constitution of the United States, 
     without regard to whether the discretion was granted to 
     respond to changing circumstances, to make policy or 
     managerial choices, or to protect the rights of third 
     parties; or
       (v) otherwise affords relief that the court could not enter 
     under its own authority upon a final judgment in the civil 
     action; or
       (B) in the case of a covered settlement agreement, a term--
       (i) that provides a remedy for a failure by the agency to 
     comply with the terms of the covered settlement agreement 
     other than the revival of the civil action resolved by the 
     covered settlement agreement; and
       (ii) that--

       (I) interferes with the authority of an agency to revise, 
     amend, or issue rules under the procedures set forth in 
     chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, or any other 
     statute or Executive order prescribing rulemaking procedures 
     for a rulemaking that is the subject of the covered 
     settlement agreement;
       (II) commits the agency to expend funds that have not been 
     appropriated and that have not been budgeted for the 
     regulatory action in question; or
       (III) for such a covered settlement agreement that commits 
     the agency to exercise in a particular way discretion which 
     was committed to the agency by statute or the Constitution of 
     the United States to respond to changing circumstances, to 
     make policy or managerial choices, or to protect the rights 
     of third parties.

       (f) Review by Court.--
       (1) Amicus.--A court considering a proposed covered consent 
     decree or settlement agreement shall presume, subject to 
     rebuttal, that it is proper to allow amicus participation 
     relating to the covered consent decree or settlement 
     agreement by any person who filed public comments or 
     participated in a public hearing on the covered consent 
     decree or settlement agreement under paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     subsection (d).
       (2) Review of deadlines.--
       (A) Proposed covered consent decrees.--For a proposed 
     covered consent decree, a court shall not approve the covered 
     consent decree unless the proposed covered consent decree 
     allows sufficient time and incorporates adequate procedures 
     for the agency to comply with chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and other applicable statutes that govern 
     rulemaking and, unless contrary to the public interest, the 
     provisions of any Executive order that governs rulemaking.
       (B) Proposed covered settlement agreements.--For a proposed 
     covered settlement agreement, a court shall ensure that the 
     covered settlement agreement allows sufficient time and 
     incorporates adequate procedures for the agency to comply 
     with chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, and other 
     applicable statutes that govern rulemaking and, unless 
     contrary to the public interest, the provisions of any 
     Executive order that governs rulemaking.
       (g) Annual Reports.--Each agency shall submit to Congress 
     an annual report that, for the year covered by the report, 
     includes--
       (1) the number, identity, and content of covered civil 
     actions brought against and covered consent decrees or 
     settlement agreements entered against or into by the agency; 
     and
       (2) a description of the statutory basis for--
       (A) each covered consent decree or settlement agreement 
     entered against or into by the agency; and
       (B) any award of attorneys fees or costs in a civil action 
     resolved by a covered consent decree or settlement agreement 
     entered against or into by the agency.

     SEC. 104. MOTIONS TO MODIFY CONSENT DECREES.

       If an agency moves a court to modify a covered consent 
     decree or settlement agreement and the basis of the motion is 
     that the terms of the covered consent decree or settlement 
     agreement are no longer fully in the public interest due to 
     the obligations of the agency to fulfill other duties or due 
     to changed facts and circumstances, the court shall review 
     the motion and the covered consent decree or settlement 
     agreement de novo.

     SEC. 105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall apply to--
       (1) any covered civil action filed on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) any covered consent decree or settlement agreement 
     proposed to a court on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

           TITLE II--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``All Economic Regulations 
     are Transparent Act of 2016'' or the ``ALERT Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 202. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 
                   PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO RULES.

       (a) Amendment.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after chapter 6, the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 6A--OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS PUBLICATION 
                    OF INFORMATION RELATING TO RULES

``Sec. 651. Agency monthly submission to office of information and 
              regulatory affairs.
``Sec. 652. Office of information and regulatory affairs publications.
``Sec. 653. Requirement for rules to appear in agency-specific monthly 
              publication.
``Sec. 654. Definitions.

     ``SEC. 651. AGENCY MONTHLY SUBMISSION TO OFFICE OF 
                   INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.

       ``On a monthly basis, the head of each agency shall submit 
     to the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs (referred to in this chapter as the 
     `Administrator'), in such a manner as the Administrator may 
     reasonably require, the following information:
       ``(1) For each rule that the agency expects to propose or 
     finalize during the following year:
       ``(A) A summary of the nature of the rule, including the 
     regulation identifier number and the docket number for the 
     rule.
       ``(B) The objectives of and legal basis for the issuance of 
     the rule, including--
       ``(i) any statutory or judicial deadline; and
       ``(ii) whether the legal basis restricts or precludes the 
     agency from conducting an analysis of the costs or benefits 
     of the rule during the rule making, and if not, whether the 
     agency plans to conduct an analysis of the costs or benefits 
     of the rule during the rule making.
       ``(C) Whether the agency plans to claim an exemption from 
     the requirements of section 553 pursuant to section 
     553(b)(B).
       ``(D) The stage of the rule making as of the date of 
     submission.
       ``(E) Whether the rule is subject to review under section 
     610.
       ``(2) For any rule for which the agency expects to finalize 
     during the following year and has issued a general notice of 
     proposed rule making--
       ``(A) an approximate schedule for completing action on the 
     rule;
       ``(B) an estimate of whether the rule will cost--
       ``(i) less than $50,000,000;
       ``(ii) $50,000,000 or more but less than $100,000,000;
       ``(iii) $100,000,000 or more but less than $500,000,000;
       ``(iv) $500,000,000 or more but less than $1,000,000,000;
       ``(v) $1,000,000,000 or more but less than $5,000,000,000;
       ``(vi) $5,000,000,000 or more but less than 
     $10,000,000,000; or
       ``(vii) $10,000,000,000 or more; and
       ``(C) any estimate of the economic effects of the rule, 
     including any estimate of the net effect that the rule will 
     have on the number of jobs in the United States, that was 
     considered in drafting the rule. If such estimate is not 
     available, a statement affirming that no information on the 
     economic effects, including the effect on the number of jobs, 
     of the rule has been considered.

     ``SEC. 652. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 
                   PUBLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Agency-Specific Information Published Monthly.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the submission of information 
     pursuant to section 651, the Administrator shall make such 
     information publicly available on the Internet.
       ``(b) Cumulative Assessment of Agency Rule Making Published 
     Annually.--
       ``(1) Publication in the federal register.--Not later than 
     October 1 of each year, the Administrator shall publish in 
     the Federal Register, for the previous year the following:
       ``(A) The information that the Administrator received from 
     the head of each agency under section 651.
       ``(B) The number of rules and a list of each such rule--
       ``(i) that was proposed by each agency, including, for each 
     such rule, an indication of whether the issuing agency 
     conducted an analysis of the costs or benefits of the rule; 
     and
       ``(ii) that was finalized by each agency, including for 
     each such rule an indication of whether--

       ``(I) the issuing agency conducted an analysis of the costs 
     or benefits of the rule;
       ``(II) the agency claimed an exemption from the procedures 
     under section 553 pursuant to section 553(b)(B); and
       ``(III) the rule was issued pursuant to a statutory mandate 
     or the rule making is committed to agency discretion by law.

       ``(C) The number of agency actions and a list of each such 
     action taken by each agency that--
       ``(i) repealed a rule;
       ``(ii) reduced the scope of a rule;
       ``(iii) reduced the cost of a rule; or
       ``(iv) accelerated the expiration date of a rule.
       ``(D) The total cost (without reducing the cost by any 
     offsetting benefits) of all rules proposed or finalized, and 
     the number of rules for which an estimate of the cost of the 
     rule was not available.
       ``(2) Publication on the internet.--Not later than October 
     1 of each year, the Administrator shall make publicly 
     available on the Internet the following:
       ``(A) The analysis of the costs or benefits, if conducted, 
     for each proposed rule or final rule issued by an agency for 
     the previous year.
       ``(B) The docket number and regulation identifier number 
     for each proposed or final rule issued by an agency for the 
     previous year.
       ``(C) The number of rules and a list of each such rule 
     reviewed by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget for the previous year, and the authority under which 
     each such review was conducted.
       ``(D) The number of rules and a list of each such rule for 
     which the head of an agency completed a review under section 
     610 for the previous year.
       ``(E) The number of rules and a list of each such rule 
     submitted to the Comptroller General under section 801.
       ``(F) The number of rules and a list of each such rule for 
     which a resolution of disapproval was introduced in either 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate under section 802.

     ``SEC. 653. REQUIREMENT FOR RULES TO APPEAR IN AGENCY-
                   SPECIFIC MONTHLY PUBLICATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a rule may 
     not take effect until the information required to be made 
     publicly available on the Internet regarding such rule 
     pursuant to section 652(a) has been so available for not less 
     than 6 months.

[[Page H135]]

       ``(b) Exceptions.--The requirement of subsection (a) shall 
     not apply in the case of a rule--
       ``(1) for which the agency issuing the rule claims an 
     exception under section 553(b)(B); or
       ``(2) which the President determines by Executive order 
     should take effect because the rule is--
       ``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       ``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
       ``(C) necessary for national security; or
       ``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an 
     international trade agreement.

     ``SEC. 654. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter, the terms `agency', `agency action', 
     `rule', and `rule making' have the meanings given those terms 
     in section 551.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     chapters for part I of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 5, 
     the following:

``6.  The Analysis of Regulatory Functions.....................601 ....

``6A.  Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Publication of 
    Information Relating to Rules............................651''.....

       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Agency monthly submission to the office of information 
     and regulatory affairs.--The first submission required 
     pursuant to section 651 of title 5, United States Code, as 
     added by subsection (a), shall be submitted not later than 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and monthly 
     thereafter.
       (2) Cumulative assessment of agency rule making.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 652 of title 5, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take 
     effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) Deadline.--The first requirement to publish or make 
     available, as the case may be, under subsection (b) of 
     section 652 of title 5, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall be the first October 1 after the 
     effective date of such subsection.
       (C) First publication.--The requirement under section 
     652(b)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall include for the first publication, any 
     analysis of the costs or benefits conducted for a proposed or 
     final rule, for the 10 years before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (3) Requirement for rules to appear in agency-specific 
     monthly publication.--Section 653 of title 5, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on the 
     date that is 8 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

        TITLE III--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Providing Accountability 
     Through Transparency Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 302. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100 WORD SUMMARY TO 
                   REGULATIONS.GOV.

       Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
     ``;'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) the internet address of a summary of not more than 
     100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, 
     that shall be posted on the internet website under section 
     206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) 
     (commonly known as regulations.gov);''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 114-388. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered 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.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Marino

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 114-388.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 16, line 5, strike the comma after ``chapter 6''.
       Page 16, after line 10, strike the table of sections for 
     chapter 6A of title 5, United States Code, as inserted by 
     section 202(a) of the bill, and insert the following:

``651. Agency monthly submission to Office of Information and 
              Regulatory Affairs.
``652. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs publications.
``653. Requirement for rules to appear in agency-specific monthly 
              publication.
``654. Definitions.

       Page 16, line 11, strike ``sec. 651. agency monthly 
     submission to office of information and regulatory affairs.'' 
     and insert ``Sec. 651. Agency monthly submission to Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs''.
       Page 16, line 19, strike ``following year'' and insert 
     ``12-month period following the month covered by the monthly 
     submission''.
       Page 17, line 19, strike ``for which'' and insert ``that''.
       Page 17, line 20, strike ``the following year and has 
     issued'' and insert ``the 12-month period following the month 
     covered by the monthly submission and for which the agency 
     has issued''.
       Page 18, line 17, strike ``rule. If such estimate is not'' 
     and insert ``rule, or, if no such estimate is''.
       Page 18, line 22, strike ``sec. 652. office of information 
     and regulatory affairs publications.'' and insert ``Sec. 652. 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs publications''.
       Page 19, line 8, insert after a comma ``shall publish''.
       Page 19, line 9, strike ``for the previous year the 
     following:'' and insert the following: ``the following, with 
     respect to the previous year:''.
       Page 22, line 1, strike ``sec. 653. requirement for rules 
     to appear in agency-specific monthly publication.'' and 
     insert ``Sec. 653. Requirement for rules to appear in agency-
     specific monthly publication''.
       Page 22, line 21, strike ``sec. 654. definitions.'' and 
     insert ``Sec. 654. Definitions''.
       Page 23, line 2, strike the comma after ``chapter 5''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I offer this amendment with my colleague, Chairman Chaffetz, as a 
manager's amendment to the bill. The amendment makes a small number of 
revisions in the nature of technical and conforming changes to clarify 
revisions that state deadlines, reformat section nomenclature and 
headings, and improve typography or grammar.
  The amendment constitutes an agreement reached between the Committee 
on the Judiciary and the other committee of jurisdiction, the Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 114-388.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In the table of contents of the bill, insert after item 
     pertaining to section 302 the following:

             TITLE IV--GENERAL EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES

Sec. 401. Exemption of certain rules, and consent decrees or settlement 
              agreements, from the provisions of this Act.

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

             TITLE IV--GENERAL EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES

     SEC. 401. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN RULES, AND CONSENT DECREES OR 
                   SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, FROM THE PROVISIONS OF 
                   THIS ACT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions 
     of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     apply in the case of a rule that the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget determines would result in net job 
     creation and whose benefits exceeds its cost, or a consent 
     decree or settlement agreement pertaining to such a rule. In 
     the case of such a rule, consent decree, or settlement 
     agreement, the provisions of law amended by this Act shall 
     apply as though such amendments had not been made.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity 
to speak in support of my amendment to H.R. 712.
  H.R. 712 would significantly delay and possibly stop the Federal 
rulemaking process by making it easier for regulated industries and 
well-funded

[[Page H136]]

antiregulatory entities to delay or prevent agency action and 
prohibiting any rule from being finalized until certain information is 
posted online for 6 months.
  This assault on the regulations is based on the false premise that 
Federal regulation stifles economic growth and job creation. My 
amendment confronts this fallacious assumption by excepting from H.R. 
712 all rules that the Office of Management and Budget determines would 
result in net job creation.
  As with many other deregulatory bills we have considered this 
Congress, the proponents of H.R. 712 argue that it will grow the 
economy, create jobs, and increase America's competitiveness 
internationally, but we cannot pretend that this politicized 
legislation is about economic growth or American prosperity.
  As I have noted during the consideration of each of the 
antiregulatory bills that we have considered in the 114th Congress, 
there is simply no credible evidence in support of the reiteration of 
so-called job-killing regulations undermining economic growth. Zero. 
The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 
unemployment has fallen to 5 percent despite Republican obstruction of 
everything that Democrats have put forward that would grow the economy.
  While there is more work to do to grow the economy and help our 
Nation's middle class, there have been 69 straight months of private 
sector job growth. That is 13.7 million private sector jobs created 
amidst a regulatory system that is pro-worker, pro-environment, pro-
public health, and pro-innovation.
  And to those who would brush aside these strong employment figures, 
the Department of Labor has also reported that claims for unemployment 
benefits have dropped to the lowest levels in over 40 years.
  While I would submit that regulations passed during the Obama 
administration have had a largely positive effect on sustainable 
economic growth, the reality is that there is little correlation 
between regulations and the economy.
  Don't just take my word for it. Take the word of the San Francisco 
and New York Federal Reserve Banks, which found zero correlation 
between employment and regulation. Take the word of The Washington 
Post, which gave two Pinocchios to industry estimates of the cost of 
regulations earlier this year. Take the word of the nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service, which has debunked claims that 
regulations have a trillion-dollar cost to the economy.
  Mr. Chairman, we need real solutions to help real people, not another 
thinly veiled handout to large corporations. I ask that my colleagues 
support my amendment to protect jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concerns about the 
impact of regulations on jobs, but I submit that the right way to 
address that concern is to join me in supporting the bill.
  The bill includes transparency requirements sure to increase public 
pressure on agencies to make sure that contemplated new regulations do 
not have unnecessary, adverse impacts on job creation. To exempt 
regulations from that pressure would make our regulatory system less 
protective of jobs, not more. Indeed, the gentleman's amendment would 
give the executive branch a powerful incentive to manipulate its jobs 
impact and cost-benefit analyses to give false impressions that avoid 
the requirements of the bill.

                              {time}  1430

  The amendment also puts the cart before the horse. It offers carve-
outs from the bill based on factors that cannot be determined 
adequately before important analytical requirements in existing 
statutes and executive orders governing the rulemaking process are 
applied in the first place.
  Specific provisions in the bill--for example, judicial review 
provisions in title I for proposed consent decrees and settlement 
agreements--are designed to protect the proper application of those 
analytical requirements.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, they talk about all of the 
regulations that have been promulgated during the Obama administration 
as if the Obama administration is the only administration that has 
promulgated rules of conduct.
  Certainly we have had rules associated with the unveiling of the very 
successful Affordable Care Act. There were a lot of rules put into 
place to prevent insurance companies from taking advantage of people.
  Preexisting conditions are outlawed. All of these are regulations 
that were associated with the Affordable Care Act. We have parents 
being able to keep their kids on their insurance up to the age of 26 
and no discrimination between men and women.
  Those were rules that have stimulated jobs in America because 22 
million people who did not have access to the healthcare system now 
have access to it. More jobs have arisen because of that. That is a 
direct result of regulations.
  The same thing with Dodd-Frank, which protects people from Wall 
Street overreach. Those rules have created opportunities for small 
businesses to come in and start creating real jobs in America.
  So rules are good for our society. This legislation cuts that ability 
to create wealth for everyone else. So I would ask that this amendment 
be approved by my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the arguments on both sides have been 
creative, at the very least, but I would like to bring to everyone's 
attention an article by the National Association of Manufacturers, 
which is in very simple figures.
  This is a survey of manufacturers: ``What would you do with funds 
currently allocated to Federal regulatory compliance?'' Sixty-three 
percent said they would invest. 22 percent said they would invest in 
employee initiatives, creating jobs.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cummings

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 114-388.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 16, strike the table of sections for chapter 6A of 
     title 5, United States Code, as inserted by section 202(a) of 
     the bill, and insert the following:

``651. Agency monthly submission to Office of Information and 
              Regulatory Affairs.
``652. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs publications.
``653. Definitions.

       Page 22, strike line 1, and all that follows through line 
     20. amend the table of contents accordingly.
       Page 22, line 21, strike ``sec. 654. definitions.'' and 
     insert ``Sec. 653. Definitions''.
       Page 24, strike line 8 and all that follows through line 
     12.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment, cosponsored by Government Operations Subcommittee 
Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, would strike the 6-month moratorium on 
rules imposed by the bill.
  Title II of this bill prohibits an agency rule from taking effect 
until 6

[[Page H137]]

months after agencies submit information the bill requires to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and that office posts this 
information on the Internet.
  Under the bill, if the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
fails to post any of the required information, a rule would be 
prohibited from taking effect. This is an arbitrary moratorium.
  The bill allows for only two exceptions. One exception is if the 
agency exempts a rule from the notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act. The other exception is if the President 
issues an executive order requiring a rule to take effect.
  This bill covers all agency rulemakings, including rules needed to 
protect our health, safety, and our environment. For example, this bill 
would cover rules like the one recently published by the Department of 
Justice that clarifies who is responsible for reporting to law 
enforcement that a gun has been lost or stolen in transit.
  Our country doesn't need an unnecessary 6-month delay in putting in 
place a commonsense safety rule like this one. The bill's 6-month 
moratorium exposes this bill for what it really is, which is a way to 
delay agency rules. My amendment would remove this provision in the 
underlying bill.
  I urge all Members to adopt my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, as Federal regulatory agencies attempt to 
pile more and more regulatory burdens on America's struggling workers, 
families, and small businesses, the least we can ask is that they be 
transparent about it.
  What could be more transparent than requiring them on a monthly 
basis, online, to update the public with realtime information about 
what new regulations are coming and how much they will cost?
  Once they have that information, affected individuals and job 
creators will be able to plan and budget meaningfully for new costs 
they may have to absorb. If they are denied that information, they will 
only be blindsided. That is not fair.
  Title II of the bill makes sure this information is provided to the 
public. To provide a strong incentive to agencies to honor its 
requirements, title II prohibits new regulations from becoming 
effective unless agencies provide transparent information online for 6 
months preceding the regulation's issuance.
  The amendment seeks to eliminate that incentive. Without an incentive 
like that in existing law, what have we seen from the Obama 
administration? Repeated failures to make disclosures required by 
statute and executive order, including the administration's year-long 
hiding of the ball on new regulations during the 2012 election cycle.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, again, I would urge Members to vote in 
favor of this amendment. Again, we have a situation here where this 6-
month moratorium is another way of blocking the rulemaking process.
  I think it is very unfortunate in this time. I think, if we are 
talking about transparency, we need to be transparent about why we have 
this moratorium. The fact is that it is an effort to stop important 
rulemakings from taking place.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have some information I would like to 
bring to the attention of the Members. It is a document from Investor's 
Business Daily. It is a very simple statement, but it is a very large 
fact: If we had a Reagan-paced job recovery, we would today have at 
least 12 million more Americans working.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 114-388.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 18, line 12, strike ``and''.
       Page 18, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 18, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(D) any estimate of the benefits of the rule.
       Page 20, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(E) The total benefits of all rules proposed or 
     finalized, and the number of rules for which an estimate of 
     the benefits of the rule was not available.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would improve title II of H.R. 712 to ensure that the 
effectiveness of agency regulations are not solely evaluated by the 
basis of the cost to industry.
  Rather, the primary importance of agency rulemaking to the improved 
health, safety, and security of the American people demands that we 
also consider the significant benefits of agency regulations in 
analyzing whether or not they contribute to protecting the public and 
promoting the general welfare.
  In particular, my amendment would require Federal agencies to provide 
an estimate of the individual benefits of a proposed regulation, just 
as H.R. 712 currently requires them to report individual regulatory 
costs.
  This amendment would also require the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs to include the total benefits of proposed and final 
agency rules in the annual report that it would be required to issue 
under H.R. 712.
  In its current form, the underlying bill expressly provides that the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs must publish only the 
total cost of all proposed and finalized agency rules without reducing 
the cost by any offsetting benefits in its calculation of the 
cumulative cost of agency regulations.
  Not surprisingly, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards has issued a 
formal opposition letter to the language that is included as title II 
of H.R. 712. The Coalition is an alliance of over 150 businesses, 
consumer protection, labor, environmental, and good government groups 
that includes the American Sustainable Business Council and its 200,000 
member businesses.
  According to the Coalition: ``This bill's one-sided focus on 
regulatory costs provides a highly distorted picture of the value of 
critical safeguards that all Americans depend on . . . By focusing 
exclusively on regulatory costs, this bill gives the misleading 
impression that regulations are an inescapable drain on the American 
economy.''
  The recent draft report of the costs and benefits of major Federal 
regulations issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
in October 2015 serves to further illustrate the transparency that is 
lacking when we only consider the costs associated with an agency 
regulation.
  Among its principal findings, the report provides that, from October 
2004 through September 2014, spanning both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, Federal agencies estimated the aggregate benefits of 
major Federal regulations to range between $216 billion and $812 
billion. In stark contrast, the approximate annual cost of major 
Federal regulations ranges between $57 billion and $85 billion.
  Importantly, several Clean Air rules promulgated by the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation have significantly high 
estimated benefits that are attributable to the reduction in public 
exposure to air pollutants.

[[Page H138]]

  According to the report, the Clean Air Fine Particle Rule of 2007 had 
benefits ranging from $19 billion to $167 billion per year. These 
regulatory benefits would not be considered under H.R. 712.
  Other health and safety rules were similarly identified as having a 
sizable benefit on the American people. Patient safety rules that 
address dietary supplement oversight, medical error, and safety 
requirements for long-term care facilities had estimated benefits 
between $13 billion and $17 billion per year.
  Transportation-related safety rules designed to reduce the risk of 
injury and death associated with airplane, vehicle, and train travel 
had estimated benefits of between $16 billion and $28 billion per year. 
These regulatory benefits would not be considered under H.R. 712, as 
currently drafted.
  Mr. Chairman, if our goal is to maximize transparency in the 
regulatory process, we can't simply give the American people and this 
Congress one side of the story.
  Rather, full transparency and informed decisionmaking require that 
our analysis does not only include the regulatory costs, but also the 
extent to which an agency bill improves and protects the health, 
safety, and security of the American people. My amendment would ensure 
that this was the case.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, it is the primary mission of every Federal agency to 
protect the American public from harmful and developing situations, 
whether we are talking about a new prescription painkiller on the 
market that the FDA finds to be highly addictive, or an emerging 
financial practice that the Securities and Exchange Commission 
determines is predatory on American consumers, or dangerous materials 
that the Environmental Protection Agency deems to be an imminent public 
hazard.
  That public mission is severely undermined if the merits of an agency 
regulation are evaluated solely on the basis of costs to the industry 
and at the expense of the significant benefits to the American people.
  Again, in closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. I welcome the gentleman's belief that new regulations can 
actually create benefits. I also share the gentleman's interest in 
ensuring that the public ultimately knows what those benefits are.
  The bill, however, does nothing to restrict or prevent the 
publication of information about the benefits of new rules. It is 
intended to address what has been lacking in administration 
publications about new rules: accurate, real-time information about the 
true nature, timing, and cost of new rules.
  That information is essential to those who must bear the burden of 
the rules so that they can plan, hire, and budget consistent with 
impending new legal requirements.
  Furthermore, the gentleman's amendment would needlessly expose new 
regulations to the bill's enforcement provisions, delaying promulgation 
of beneficial rules simply because pre-promulgation statements and 
expected benefits were lacking.
  Mr. Chairman, I constantly spend time in my district in factories 
because I came from manufacturing, talking to small-business people, 
and the number one issue concerning their livelihoods and others is 
overregulation crushing jobs for middle class Americans.
  As a result, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 114-388.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 18, line 14, insert after ``including'' the following: 
     ``the imposition of unfunded mandates and''.
       Page 20, line 19, insert after ``or finalized,'' the 
     following: ``the total cost of any unfunded mandates imposed 
     by all such rules,''.
       Page 22, line 24, insert after ``section 551'' the 
     following: ``, and the term `unfunded mandate' has the 
     meaning given the term `Federal mandate' in section 421(6) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(6)).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to title II, the ALERT Act, 
ensures that agencies and OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, OIRA, report the cost of unfunded mandates imposed through the 
regulatory process.
  Federal agencies can advance government initiatives without using 
Federal taxpayer dollars by issuing regulations that pass compliance 
down to State and local governments and to private businesses. These 
costly mandates make it harder for companies to hire and for cash-
strapped States, counties, and cities to keep streets safe and parks 
clean.
  My amendment requires agencies to include in their monthly reports to 
OIRA whether rules in the pipeline impose unfunded mandates, and 
requires OIRA to include in its annual cumulative assessment of new 
regulations the total cost of unfunded mandates imposed by the Federal 
Government.
  This amendment will not unduly burden agencies' regulatory work, as 
it requires only that they be transparent in their imposition of 
unfunded mandates on State and local governments and private 
businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would further 
increase the duplication and burden of the underlying bill.
  Agencies are already required to perform an analysis, under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, of whether a proposed rule imposes an 
unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private 
sector.
  This amendment would require agencies to report to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs every month on any unfunded mandate 
estimates for proposed rules. This amendment would be a backdoor way to 
get the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to review unfunded 
mandate assessments by independent agencies.
  Currently, independent agencies are exempt from the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. This amendment would require independent agencies to 
conduct unfunded mandate assessments and submit them to OIRA. This 
would jeopardize the independence of these agencies, which is so very 
important.
  I oppose the underlying bill, and I oppose this amendment, which does 
not improve the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, 
and I strongly support her amendment.
  Over the past several decades, the accumulation of unfunded mandates 
issued by the Federal Government to State and local governments, 
tribes, and the private sector has become an alarming concern.
  This amendment will throw an early and needed spotlight on proposed 
new unfunded mandates as Federal agencies

[[Page H139]]

begin the process of considering them. Hopefully, once they are 
informed of them in time, by the amendment, those who would otherwise 
have to bear the burden of unfunded mandates will be better armed to 
fend off their unjust imposition.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time with the 
right to close.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in the debate last night on a 
similar amendment, unfunded mandates are frequently overlooked in the 
debates about regulatory reform. However, these decisions have real 
costs and real effects on the individuals, families, and communities we 
each represent.
  While my amendment is a small change, it ensures that costs passed 
down to businesses, State and local governments are reported.
  I thank my colleagues for their consideration and ask for their 
support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, again, I think I have stated very clearly 
why we oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 114-388.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the 
Jackson Lee amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, line 14, strike ``an imminent'' and insert ``a''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 712 imposes a 6-month 
moratorium before a rule can take effect, unless the rule either:
  (1) qualifies under the Administrative Procedure Act's exception for 
notice and comment, which applies ``when the agency for good cause 
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of the 
reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure 
thereon are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest;'' 
or
  (2) if the President issues an executive order determining that the 
rule is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or 
other emergency, necessary for the enforcement of the criminal laws, 
necessary for national security, or issued pursuant to any statute 
implementing an international trade agreement.
  The amendment simply strikes ``imminent'' from H.R. 712, so that a 
rule that prevents a threat to health or safety or other emergency 
would qualify under the bill's exception.
  As the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--an organization 
representing more than 150 labor, scientific, research, good 
government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public 
interest groups--observes, the bill's moratorium will put on hold for 6 
months ``the benefits of critically needed regulations, whether 
measured in lives saved, environmental damage averted, or money 
saved.''
  This 6-month delay would be in addition to the already time-consuming 
process by which rules are promulgated.
  Why should a rule intended to protect public health and safety be 
held up for 6 months simply because the anticipated harm the rule 
addresses is not imminent? Shouldn't we look to try to foresee what is 
going to happen?
  That is what this amendment will enable, if this legislation passes. 
I will ask my colleagues to support this very much commonsense 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Title II of the bill contains transparency requirements that are long 
overdue. To make sure that agencies comply and conduct their business 
in the sunshine, it prohibits an agency from entering a new regulation 
into effect unless the agency makes the disclosures the bill requires 
for at least 6 months before the regulation's published effective date.
  Nevertheless, to provide flexibility where it is needed, the bill 
allows exceptions to the prohibition. For example, it grants a general 
exception for rules that do not require notice and public comment 
pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act's ``good cause'' 
exception. By statute, this exception includes situations where taking 
the time for notice and comment would be ``contrary to the public 
interest.''
  In addition, the bill provides for a specific exception when a rule 
is needed to respond to an imminent threat.
  The amendment seeks to widen the latter exception, but it goes too 
far. It would allow any health or safety rule, including environmental 
rules, that an agency self-styles as responsive to an emergency, to 
evade the title's reasonable disclosure requirements with ease.
  A mere 6 months of disclosure to the public is not unreasonable in 
the absence of an imminent emergency. The courts, moreover, can be 
relied upon to interpret the imminency requirement so as not to delay 
unduly the effective dates of needed, true emergency rules.
  And, in any event, the bill's exception for rules qualifying for the 
APA's ``good cause'' exception to notice and comment is adequate to 
provide for any remaining need. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, opposition is premised upon the 
notion that we just can't trust a Federal employee who is charged with 
overseeing the protection of Americans through the rule process. We 
don't believe, on the other side, that a person can be conscientious 
and dutiful about trying to help people.
  Instead, they want to make it such that you can't issue a rule. You 
will gum up the process by extending it out for so long--another 6 
months--despite the fact that the rule, as foreseen by a Federal 
employee--and it has gone through the notice and comments part of the 
Administrative Procedure Act, which has worked for decades. You just 
simply don't want government to issue a rule that can protect people.
  Why? Because it gets in the way of some big corporations' profits. 
That is what this is really all about, protecting profits at the 
expense of the health, safety, and well-being of the people. We don't 
trust a government worker to be able to provide good service to the 
people by promulgating rules that protect people.

                              {time}  1500

  It is crazy, but that is what we are dealing with.
  I would ask that the very reasonable Jackson Lee amendment be favored 
by my colleagues in this body.
  Please vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume just to say to the gentleman from Georgia that it is entirely 
reasonable that regulations proposed to protect the people, as he 
notes, should be known by the people before they are put into effect 
because they may decide it is not the way they want to be protected. 
All this legislation does is make sure that they have adequate notice 
of proposed regulations that could have an impact on their jobs, on 
their family, on their health, and on their safety.
  Government bureaucrats don't always get it right. We have learned 
that the hard way. I think it is very important that this amendment be 
defeated and that the underlying notice requirement in the bill that 
will benefit the general public be preserved. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H140]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cummings

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 114-388.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, line 24, insert before the period the following: 
     ``, except that the term `agency' does not include an 
     independent establishment as defined in section 104''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is cosponsored by Government Operations Subcommittee 
Ranking Member Gerry Connolly. Our amendment would exempt independent 
agencies from the unnecessary, burdensome, and potentially dangerous 
provisions of this legislation.
  This bill would prohibit an agency rule from taking effect until the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs posts certain information 
on proposed and final rules on the Internet for at least 6 months. The 
bill only allows for two exceptions. One exception is if the agency 
exempts a rule from the notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedures Act. The other exception is if the President 
issues an executive order requiring a rule to take effect.
  This bill covers all agency rulemakings, no matter how important. 
When applied to independent agencies, it is particularly dangerous. 
Independent agencies are supposed to regulate industries without the 
risk of political interference on their rulemaking. They are not 
required to obtain approval for their rules from the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
  Under this bill, a rule issued by an independent agency could be 
delayed if the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs fails to 
comply with the requirements of the bill. That means this bill would 
give the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs the ability to 
delay a rule issued by an independent agency. That may be an unintended 
consequence, but it is a serious one that could affect our Nation's 
financial markets, health, and safety.
  One independent agency that would be affected by this rule is the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission. The CPSC recently proposed a safety 
standard for high chairs. The CPSC reports that over a 4-year period, 
an estimated 10,000 injuries occurred that were related to high chairs. 
H.R. 712 could delay rules like these high chair standards. That is 
simply unacceptable. Our amendment would exempt independent agencies 
like the Consumer Product Safety Commission from the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Title II of the bill, the ALERT Act, contains needed transparency 
requirements so that hardworking Americans who bear the cost of new 
regulation at least know in realtime what is coming and what it will 
cost them to comply. Just like ordinary executive agencies, independent 
agencies should provide this level of transparency about the new 
regulations they are preparing.
  Why should the public not have the right to know as much about what 
the Securities and Exchange Commission is planning to impose as it 
knows about what the Environmental Protection Agency plans? Why 
shouldn't the public know as much about how the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau plans to regulate new car loans as it knows about how 
the Department of Transportation plans to regulate new car designs?
  The bill strengthens and protects the public's right to know. The 
amendment would allow independent agencies to hide the ball at the 
public's expense, and so I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
114-388 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Cummings of Maryland.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 242, not voting 16, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               AYES--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

[[Page H141]]


  


                               NOES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Chu, Judy
     Cleaver
     DeLauro
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Miller (MI)
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Rush
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Titus
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1541

  Messrs. CALVERT, WHITFIELD, ZINKE, MARINO, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Mr. 
COLLINS of Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, CLYBURN, Mses. SCHAKOWSKY, LORETTA 
SANCHEZ of California, MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, and Mr. 
McNERNEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr Chair, on rollcall No. 7, the Johnson of Georgia 
Amendment No. 2, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cummings

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cummings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 244, not voting 15, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 8]

                               AYES--174

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Chu, Judy
     Cleaver
     DeLauro
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Miller (MI)

[[Page H142]]


     Nugent
     Rush
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Titus
     Webster (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1546

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 235, not voting 18, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 9]

                               AYES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Chu, Judy
     Cleaver
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Miller (MI)
     Nugent
     Rokita
     Rush
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Titus
     Walker
     Webster (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1550

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 241, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               AYES--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez

[[Page H143]]


     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Chu, Judy
     Cleaver
     DeLauro
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Lewis
     Miller (MI)
     Nugent
     Rush
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Titus
     Webster (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1553

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dold, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 712) to 
impose certain limitations on consent decrees and settlement agreements 
by agencies that require the agencies to take regulatory action in 
accordance with the terms thereof, and for other purposes, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 580, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Kelly of Illinois moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 712, 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 1, amend the table of contents for the bill by 
     inserting after the item pertaining to section 302 the 
     following:

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. No delay of any rule, consent decree, or settlement agreement 
              that prevents gun violence.

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. NO DELAY OF ANY RULE, CONSENT DECREE, OR SETTLEMENT 
                   AGREEMENT THAT PREVENTS GUN VIOLENCE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 
     apply in the case of any rule, consent decree, or settlement 
     agreement that pertains to protecting Americans from gun 
     violence, particularly in school zones or other sensitive 
     areas.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment is a simple, straightforward, commonsense 
improvement that I believe both sides of the aisle can agree would help 
protect American children from the threat of violence.
  If my amendment passes, it would ensure that men and women that we 
represent and their children will have the peace of mind of knowing 
that this Congress can cast aside partisan differences to vote to 
protect families and communities from senseless gun violence.
  That is because my amendment would exempt this bill to any regulation 
that would protect Americans, particularly young children, from gun 
violence in school zones and other sensitive areas.
  If an agency proposes a solution that would improve the health, 
safety, and well-being of Americans, especially children, by limiting 
gun violence, it is simply unconscionable to throw obstacles in the way 
to stymie that solution.
  I don't see how this Congress, whose Members were entrusted by 
families in our home districts to defend their right to life, liberty, 
and happiness, can argue that we did all we could to defend these 
rights, yet vote against responsible proposals that aim to protect life 
and preserve liberty and promote happiness.

                              {time}  1600

  How can we in good conscience allow this body to pass this bill as 
is? How can we allow good community safety solutions to get bogged down 
when we can amend this bill to keep gun violence from ringing out in 
our classrooms and playgrounds? How can we turn a blind eye to 
regulations that charge us to act now to keep our children from being 
victimized by violence and say that the responsible thing to do is to 
sideline it for 6 months for additional review?
  We cannot allow our children to be sitting ducks for half a year. Far 
too many times we hear about a child the same age as your son, your 
daughter, or grandchild falling victim to a stray bullet fired by a 
criminal, someone who should not have been able to purchase a gun but 
found a way through loopholes in our laws.
  Or we hear about young women who are victims of domestic violence and 
are killed by their former partner who, despite a violent past, was 
able to legally purchase a firearm.
  On Tuesday, President Obama announced a number of executive actions

[[Page H144]]

to address our Nation's gun violence epidemic. Specifically, the 
President's actions expand Federal background checks and improve mental 
healthcare reporting to ensure guns stay out of the hands of dangerous 
individuals.
  I am not asking for you to vote based on your feelings for the 
President, but I want to pose this to you: If there were a 6-month 
waiting period before a regulation ensuring that the dangerously 
mentally ill are unable to purchase a firearm went into effect, how 
many innocent lives would be lost? How many men, women, and children 
would be killed? How many more Newtowns, how many more Auroras, and how 
many more Charlestons would occur? How many more of my young 
constituents in Chicago and Riverdale would I lose to gun violence 
after being shot by a stray bullet on their way home from school?
  I support policies that are thorough and measured, but I cannot 
support policies that prevent health and safety regulations, especially 
those that ensure the well-being of children from immediately being 
enforceable.
  I have come to this floor countless times to advocate for commonsense 
gun legislation. We must act. My amendment will improve the bill by 
putting the health, safety, and well-being of our Nation's children 
first. It will ensure that Congress works with President Obama and 
allows his executive actions to start saving lives immediately. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the American people have waited too long 
for relief for us to delay in the face of this procedural motion. Now 
is the time for action, not parliamentary gimmicks.
  We are 7 years into the Obama administration. Real unemployment is 
still a massive problem. America's labor force participation is still 
near record lows, yet instead of helping by getting out of the way, the 
Obama administration and Washington's entrenched regulatory bureaucracy 
day after day pile new burden after new burden on the backs of workers, 
American families, and small-business owners.
  The total cost of Federal regulations is poised to zoom past $2 
trillion per year as the Obama administration furiously works to get 
out the door all the regulations it can in its last year in office. If 
that $2 trillion were a nation's economy, it would be one of the top 10 
economies in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, the Investor's Business Daily reports that we have just 
concluded 8 years of zero real wage growth for America's workers and 
families. That means zero wage growth for the entire Obama 
administration.
  What about jobs? We would have created almost 6 million more jobs if 
the so-called Obama recovery had just been as strong as the average 
recovery since World War II.
  America's workers and families cannot afford for Washington to 
continue to sacrifice the Nation's prosperity and ability to generate 
jobs so the regulatory bureaucracy can expand into every nook and 
cranny of our lives. Nothing in this bill prevents emergency 
regulations or otherwise unduly delays needed regulations.
  Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 244, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 11]

                               AYES--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder

[[Page H145]]


     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bishop (GA)
     Chu, Judy
     Cleaver
     Connolly
     DeLauro
     Gutierrez
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Miller (MI)
     Nugent
     Rush
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Titus
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1611

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER. The House has embarked on its first lengthy vote series 
of this session, and the Chair will take this time to reiterate the 
rules and policies on the length of votes.
  The rules establish 15 minutes as the minimum time for electronic 
voting in the ordinary case and 5 minutes and 2 minutes as the minimum 
time in other cases when Members are already in or near the Chamber in 
response to an earlier vote.
  Members should attempt to come to the floor within the 15-minute 
period as prescribed by the first ringing of the bells.
  Members are further reminded that the standard policy is to not 
terminate the vote when a Member is in the well attempting to cast a 
vote. Other efforts to hold the vote open are not similarly protected.
  As a point of courtesy to each of your colleagues, voting within the 
allotted time would help with the maintenance of the institution.
  The Chair appreciates the Members' attention to this matter.
  Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 173, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 12]

                               AYES--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Chu, Judy
     Cleaver
     DeLauro
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     McDermott
     Miller (MI)
     Nugent
     Rush
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Titus
     Webster (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack) (during the vote). There is 1 
minute remaining.

                              {time}  1620

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________