Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2016)

[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.

[[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

[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

Recorded Vote

[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.

____________________