[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5470-H5479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    REGULATORY INTEGRITY ACT OF 2016


                             general leave

  Mr. WALBERG. 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 material on H.R. 5226.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 863 and rule 
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. 5226.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1538


                     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. 5226) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to 
require the publication of information relating to pending agency 
regulatory actions, and for other purposes, with Mr. Rothfus 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.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 
5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016, a good government 
transparency bill.
  This bill is a simple concept, but I believe it will have an 
important and positive impact on the public's participation in the 
regulatory process. That positive impact will, in turn, benefit the 
regulatory process as a whole.
  Mr. Chairman, the public comment period is an essential part of 
upholding our democratic values. It ensures that Americans will have 
their voices heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process.
  H.R. 5226 helps preserve the integrity of the public commenting in 
two primary ways. First, the bill defines the parameters of how an 
agency should communicate when the agency is offering a proposal to the 
public and when asking that the public provide feedback. This bill 
requires agencies to do only what you should expect them to do, if the 
request for feedback was genuine and sincere.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5226 requires the agency to, one, identify itself; 
two, clearly state whether the agency is accepting public comments or 
considering alternatives; and, three, most importantly, speak about the 
regulation in a neutral, unbiased tone.
  The people I represent in Michigan's Seventh District are ready to 
offer honest and thoughtful feedback, but they currently lack 
confidence that Federal agencies are actually open to their insights 
and constructive criticism.
  There may be no better example of this tendency to ignore the 
American public than the EPA's Waters of the U.S. Rule. The EPA not 
only overlooked the very real concerns of the countryside--concerns 
expressed by my constituents in Monroe, Jackson, and Lenawee County--
but the EPA actually engaged in a social media campaign to gin up 
support for their proposal.
  In fact, the Government Accountability Office found that the EPA 
undertook a ``covert propaganda'' campaign by soliciting social media 
comments in support of their proposed rule. GAO also told the EPA to 
report this violation to the President and Congress because ``the 
agency's appropriations were not available for these prohibited 
purposes.''
  The public comment period is the opportunity afforded to American 
people to voice their concerns on proposed rules, and agencies must 
take their input seriously.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill simply tells agencies that they need to keep 
to the facts and avoid soliciting support when they ought to be 
soliciting comments.
  Mr. Chairman, the second way this bill helps to preserve the 
integrity of the regulatory process is that it establishes transparency 
requirements for the agency in how it communicates to the public.
  The bill requires agencies to post on their Web site some basic 
information about each communication the agency makes about pending 
regulatory action. For each communication, the public will be able to 
see a copy of the communication, the intended audience, the method of 
communication, and the date the communication was issued.
  Additionally, agencies will be required to post online a description 
of each regulatory action, the date the agency first began to consider 
or develop each action, the status of each action, and the expected 
date of completion for each action.
  Mr. Chairman, these basic transparency measures will allow the public 
to have a central source for all communication about a specific 
regulatory action so that the public can have a full and equal 
opportunity to understand the intent of the agency.
  It will also allow Congress and the American public to verify that 
communications to the public about regulatory actions are honest, 
unbiased, and compliant with the requirements of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, although individuals may disagree about how much 
regulation is appropriate or how intrusive regulations might be, we 
should all agree that the public's participation is a vital part of 
legitimizing the rulemaking process. Without input from the public--
input that is fully considered by the agency promulgating the rule--
something fundamental is missing from the legislation itself.
  Unfortunately, we have seen over and over again agencies that seem to 
believe that the regulatory process is simply a perfunctory act of 
compliance necessary to reach the end goal of whatever regulatory 
scheme the agency's staff feels is best.
  What we see when the agency diminishes the public input is that the 
rulemaking process is used by agencies to

[[Page H5471]]

advocate for what should be a proposed rule rather than used to refine 
and improve upon the agency's existing thoughts.

                              {time}  1545

  In fact, Congress originally established the regulatory process as a 
way to crowdsource the development of regulations long before the term 
``crowdsourcing'' was even a thing.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill helps us return to our original intent of 
crowdsourcing regulatory efforts, by preventing agencies from boasting 
to the public about how great their proposal is, instead of honestly 
and earnestly asking for feedback, constructive criticism, and a 
dialogue about how best to solve problems. As a result, H.R. 5226 will 
restore integrity to our regulatory process.
  I appreciate the opportunity to bring the bill to the floor today. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5226, and I cannot 
support this bill as drafted. This legislation is another attempt by 
House Republicans to attack agency rulemakings with which they 
disagree. This attack is done under the guise of creating more 
transparency, but the bill will actually lead to less openness in the 
agency rulemaking process.
  The bill we are considering today supposedly aims to prohibit 
improper communications by agencies, known as agency aggrandizement. 
What the bill actually does is muzzle agencies from talking about 
pending rules.
  This bill would prohibit agencies from making public communications 
to solicit support for or to promote a pending agency regulatory 
action. Agencies currently are prohibited from grassroots lobbying for 
an agency rule or from engaging in publicity or propaganda.
  The GAO has issued opinions that define what agencies can and cannot 
say. GAO says that three categories of communications are off limits: 
one, covert communications; two, self-aggrandizement; and three, purely 
partisan activities.
  This bill goes far beyond that by prohibiting communications that are 
to promote a rule. Almost anything an agency says would be considered 
promotion of a rule. The practical impact of this legislation is that 
almost any action the agency made to communicate the benefits of a rule 
could be considered to be improperly promoting a pending action.
  The bill defines public communication to include every oral, written, 
or electronic communication. This means that tweets as innocuous and as 
popular as the Department of the Interior's daily nature photo could 
even be considered improper promotion. I cannot believe that the 
sponsors of this bill would really intend to regulate nature photos on 
Twitter.
  In addition to limiting communications between agencies and the 
public, this legislation contains a number of other unnecessarily 
burdensome requirements.
  Yesterday, the White House issued a Statement of Administration 
Policy that said that, if this bill were presented to the President, 
his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. That 
statement said: ``The Regulatory Integrity Act would be duplicative and 
costly to the American taxpayer. The separate tracking and reporting of 
agency communications as prescribed by the bill is unnecessary, is 
extremely burdensome, and provides little to no value while diverting 
agency resources from important priorities.''
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5226.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
his leadership on this important issue.
  Congress and the courts have stated time and again, agencies cannot 
use taxpayer funds to lobby Congress on rules and regulations. It is 
supposed to be perfectly clear, but, unfortunately, we have seen that 
this administration thinks it is above the law, disregarding the clear 
differences between disseminating information and lobbying.
  In 2004, The New York Times--yes, The New York Times--reported on the 
EPA's use of taxpayers' funds for a propaganda campaign to promote its 
proposed clean water rule.
  The minority talks about muzzling. Well, we do need to muzzle 
propaganda. At the same time the EPA was working with outside groups to 
actively promote the rule on social media like Facebook and Twitter, 
this covert propaganda came, despite the clear line that prohibits 
Federal agencies from engaging and lobbying on causes.
  Enough is enough, Mr. Chairman. Federal agencies should not be using 
taxpayer dollars to lobby on behalf of rules and regulations they are 
issuing, as The New York Times pointed out and discovered.
  I have heard from farmers, manufacturers, miners, and more in West 
Virginia about their concerns with rules such as waters of the U.S. 
Their concerns are legitimate, and the EPA should not be drowning out 
criticism by actively lobbying for their own rules on social media.
  This is a commonsense bill. This deserves bipartisan support by all 
Members of Congress. It shouldn't matter which party is in control of 
Congress or which party is in the White House. It is simply good 
policy.
  I encourage approval of this legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am awaiting additional Members who would like to speak to this 
issue, but, in the intervening time, let me just say again I certainly, 
having majored in forestry and land management early in my academic 
career, love pictures of nature. We are not attempting to stop that 
from taking place. We are simply saying that the American public 
deserves the opportunity, in regulatory issues, to make clear public 
comments and to know, with transparency, what agencies are doing.
  To find out, with the new social media opportunities, that agencies 
like the EPA are using taxpayer dollars to purchase specific tools, 
electronic media tools, to engage in encouraging people only to comment 
positively about their rules, that is a great concern. So, Mr. 
Chairman, I think it is appropriate for us to put a little further 
block in saying taxpayers ought to be considered and agencies ought to 
listen to them, and not the other way around.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a letter in my possession signed by numerous 
groups, public interest groups, stating their opposition to H.R. 5226. 
It is a very interesting combination of groups: the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, 
American Association of University Women, Americans for Financial 
Reform, Clean Water Action, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of 
America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Earthjustice, U.S. 
PIRG, United Steelworkers, Voices for Progress, WE ACT for 
Environmental Justice, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, 
Prairie Rivers Network, and NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.
  What they all agree on is that the Regulatory Integrity Act will 
significantly undermine a Federal agency's ability to engage and inform 
the public in a meaningful and transparent way regarding its work on 
important, science-based rulemakings that will greatly benefit the 
public.
  As a result, the bill will lead to decreased public awareness and 
participation in the rulemaking process in direct contradiction of the 
Administrative Procedure Act and agencies' authorizing statutes which 
specifically provide for broad stakeholder engagement.
  They point out that substantial ambiguities in the bill threaten to 
create uncertainty and confusion among agencies about what public 
communications are permissible and, thus, risk discouraging them from 
keeping the public apprised of the important work that they do on its 
behalf.
  In an era when agencies should be increasingly embracing innovative 
21st century communications technologies needed to reach the public, 
including

[[Page H5472]]

social media, H.R. 5226 sends exactly the wrong message. So that means 
that all of these groups feel as though this legislation would dampen 
or chill the public's ability to be able to weigh in on a rule, to be 
able to even know what those agencies are doing. I just, for the life 
of me, cannot understand what the urgency is to pass this bill into law 
and to have the chilling effects that it would have on the public's 
ability to communicate with its government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend and colleague from Missouri. I appreciate his 
concerns, appreciate the list. But in that list, I didn't hear anyone 
that would have to live directly under the new regulations that are 
being proposed or people that would offer comment with great concerns 
of how it would impact them.
  I am thinking of the agriculture community in my district, major 
community in the district, with great concerns about waters of the U.S. 
and the impact that it would have in doing away with the opportunity of 
the family farm, in many cases.
  So I don't see any significant problems with any ambiguity, if there 
be any, which this legislation might produce amongst agencies because 
we are always open to agencies coming to Congress asking questions. 
What did we mean?
  I think debates like this, that I appreciate, give an opportunity to 
look back and say this is what we debated, this is what we meant to do, 
and this is how you ought to carry it out. So the issue of any 
ambiguity that would come up from this legislation, in fact, I don't 
think it is a problem. It adds more insight.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, listening to the 
critical nature of this issue about communication--I served 18 years in 
our State legislature. One of the great awakenings to me up here was 
the fact that, once we pass a law and we tell the administration, who 
tells an agency to craft a rule to carry out that law, under the 
Federal system, the agency can do essentially whatever it wants to do.

                              {time}  1600

  That rule doesn't officially come back and not go into effect until 
the Congress gives its stamp of approval. The agency basically can do 
almost anything it wants. The role, responsibility, and power of 
Congress is somewhat limited.
  In the State legislature, a rule had to come back in West Virginia 
and get the full approval of the legislature once again. That was the 
voice of the legislature to say: We think you got it right, agency, or 
not.
  We don't have that luxury here. That is why in this rulemaking 
process, the communication as the draft rule and proposed final rule 
get published, we run into the issue where an agency, through all these 
incredible communication tools, might cross the line and actually try 
to influence the public comments to bolster their rule, essentially 
lobbying for their own rule. That is simply wrong. We need to have a 
clearly defined rule.
  That is what this bill does. We need to put the power back in the 
people and to make sure that they are not unduly influenced by an 
agency that is simply trying to sell their rule. Communicating with the 
public is important. We have incredible communication tools. That is a 
positive thing. But they have to be used in the right way, and that is 
why this legislation makes sure that they are used in the right way and 
why this is so important.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend from Michigan mentioned that he didn't hear 
in the list people that may be impacted by this legislation. The list 
includes 34 different groups, and some of them that I think that all of 
us represent that would be impacted by this arbitrary legislation are 
groups like Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environment 
America, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Prairie 
Rivers Network--I am not even sure where that is based, but I represent 
the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers right at St. 
Louis, so water is important to the people in my region--U.S. PIRG, 
Union of Concerned Scientists, United Steelworkers, and United Support 
and Memorial for Workplace Fatalities. Those are some of the groups 
that are represented in this letter.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Missouri.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016, would, 
we believe, impose duplicative and unnecessary procedural requirements 
on agencies that would prevent them from efficiently performing their 
statutory responsibilities and could potentially lead to a less 
informed public due to the nature of the communication that is 
requested or not to be requested by this bill. Additionally, Mr. 
Chairman, these duplicative services will be costly to the American 
taxpayer.
  While we agree that some increased transparency should be considered, 
this bill actually grinds regulatory processes and has an onerous and 
chilling reporting requirement to it. The bill increases bureaucratic 
red tape my Republican colleagues purport to be the problem with 
government and creates additional oversight by the Federal Government 
on agencies. We do have the ability to keep agencies from what their 
rulemaking is through our own appropriation of those agencies and what 
they do.
  If that isn't reason enough not to support this legislation, its 
added costs to the American taxpayers should do the job. The separate 
tracking and reporting of agency communications as prescribed by the 
bill is unnecessary and extremely burdensome and provides little to no 
value while diverting agency resources from the important priorities 
and work that the agencies with limited resources as it is are supposed 
to carry out.
  This bill is designed for the majority to more easily combat agency 
actions that they disagree with.
  Mr. Chairman, there are more urgent matters that we need to be taking 
up at this time that need our immediate attention: the Zika virus, the 
Flint water crisis, gun violence, and the heroin and opiate crisis that 
are going on right now. This is really unnecessary time that this 
Congress should be taking, and we believe that this should be struck 
down by this Congress.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bishop), my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Walberg for all his 
hard work on this issue. It is a very important issue for this country 
and the people that we represent.
  Every year, unelected bureaucrats create thousands of onerous rules 
that have the full effect of a law without any input from the people 
that they will impact--rules like the EPA's waters of the United States 
rule or the Department of Labor's overtime rule--which I hear about 
often in my office. These rules are able to be crafted and adopted 
behind closed doors without ever being voted on by a single elected 
official with absolutely no transparency and no public debate.
  Nevertheless, this administration continues to churn out these rules 
without regard for the negative consequences or the fact that this 
rulemaking process is contrary to the express terms of the United 
States Constitution, Article I, section 1, which gives exclusive 
lawmaking power to the legislative branch.
  These rules have so many negative consequences like fewer jobs and 
less workplace flexibility, and they impact virtually everyone in some 
way or another. That is why I support Mr. Walberg's bill, H.R. 5226, 
the Regulatory Integrity Act. It provides much-needed transparency into 
the rulemaking process by requiring agencies to post all public 
comments in a central location. It also prohibits Federal agencies from 
actively soliciting support for any and all proposed rules during the 
public comment period.
  Mr. Chairman, I have worked here for 2 years, and I am still shocked 
by the brazen disregard this administration has shown for the rule of 
law and the United States Constitution. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this measure.

  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the gentleman

[[Page H5473]]

from Missouri, my friend, aware that I have no further speakers and I 
am prepared to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to close by reiterating a few of the problems 
with the Regulatory Integrity Act. This bill would require agencies to 
report every interaction with the public regardless of whether it is a 
phone call, email, tweet, or more formal statement. The bill would 
prove completely unworkable and would have the effect of chilling 
agencies' interactions with the public and leading to less transparency 
with the agency rulemaking process.
  I would support a bill that actually improved transparency. This bill 
will not accomplish that, and I cannot support it. I, again, urge my 
colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the concerns. I think we 
really want the same thing. We want to make sure that in the process of 
doing regulation rules, that they fit the need, but I guess I would add 
to the point that as limited as possible in order to keep the liberty, 
opportunity and growth in our country is what I would feel to be 
necessary.
  We have regulatory agencies that are--because of their strength, 
their power, and their pervasiveness--able to direct the course of 
regulation under the guise of having public comment, under the guise of 
seeking that advice and even best practices; yet behind the scenes are 
using resources with some of the abilities they have today with social 
media and other things to lobby for a particular proposal before they 
have even looked at the comments from those that have to deal with it, 
whether it is a corporation or whether it is a farmer or whether it is 
a union.
  As a former proud United Steel worker myself, I understand that 
regulations are important to make sure that protections are taken. But 
as a steelworker, I wanted to know that I had a job to come back to at 
a site to come back to. The place I worked at in the south side of 
Chicago is no longer there. Many of the reasons were because of bad 
decisions by the corporation, but also a regulatory climate that made 
it difficult to compete.
  So all we are asking here is that there be full transparency, that 
Congress gets more involved in saying yes to good ideas from the 
agencies or saying no to bad ideas from the agencies, in listening to 
people and making sure that their concerns are met first and foremost. 
That is all I ask.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I ask support for H.R. 5226, I believe a 
commonsense and, yes, a bipartisan proposal to put transparency back 
into the system and integrity in the way we do our regulatory reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, there is loads of work for Congress to do 
``before we sleep''--from the budget for the federal government itself 
to funding for the Zika health emergency before it gets any more out of 
control.
  Instead, the House just wasted time on H.R. 5226, the badly misnamed 
Regulatory Integrity Act, a bill so costly to taxpayers and so 
redundant of existing legislation that it has attracted a veto threat.
  The bill adds wasteful costs to the regulatory process Republicans 
incessantly claim is too costly now. H.R. 5226 requires every public 
communication to be published within 24 hours. Duh! Public 
communications are by definition--public.
  Republicans have never seen a regulation they like. Putting new and 
costly work on agencies won't make regulations any less acceptable. If 
the point was the same as usual--to try to deter regulations--
Republicans are going to have to try harder.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  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 Rules Committee Print 114-63. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text to the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 5226

       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 ``Regulatory Integrity Act of 
     2016''.

     SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO PENDING 
                   REGULATORY ACTIONS.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 306 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory 
       action

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Agency regulatory action.--The term `agency 
     regulatory action' means guidance, policy statement, 
     directive, rule making, or adjudication issued by an 
     Executive agency.
       ``(2) Aggrandizement.--The term `aggrandizement' means--
       ``(A) any communication emphasizing the importance of the 
     Executive agency or agency regulatory action that does not 
     have the clear purpose of informing the public of the 
     substance or status of the Executive agency or agency 
     regulatory action; or
       ``(B) any communication that is puffery.
       ``(3) Public communication.--The term `public 
     communication'--
       ``(A) means any method (including written, oral, or 
     electronic) of disseminating information to the public, 
     including an agency statement (written or verbal), blog, 
     video, audio recording, or other social media message; and
       ``(B) does not include a notice published in the Federal 
     Register pursuant to section 553 or any requirement to 
     publish pursuant to this section.
       ``(4) Rule making.--The term `rule making' has the meaning 
     given that term under section 551.
       ``(b) Information To Be Posted Online.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The head of each Executive agency shall 
     make publicly available in a searchable format in a prominent 
     location either on the website of the Executive agency or in 
     the rule making docket on Regulations.gov the following 
     information:
       ``(A) Pending agency regulatory action.--A list of each 
     pending agency regulatory action and with regard to each such 
     action--
       ``(i) the date on which the Executive agency first began to 
     develop or consider the agency regulatory action;
       ``(ii) the status of the agency regulatory action;
       ``(iii) an estimate of the date of upon which the agency 
     regulatory action will be final and in effect; and
       ``(iv) a brief description of the agency regulatory action.
       ``(B) Public communication.--For each pending agency 
     regulatory action, a list of each public communication about 
     the pending agency regulatory action issued by the Executive 
     agency and with regard to each such communication--
       ``(i) the date of the communication;
       ``(ii) the intended audience of the communication;
       ``(iii) the method of communication; and
       ``(iv) a copy of the original communication.
       ``(2) Period.--The head of each Executive agency shall 
     publish the information required under paragraph (1)(A) not 
     later than 24 hours after a public communication relating to 
     a pending agency regulatory action is issued and shall 
     maintain the public availability of such information not less 
     than 5 years after the date on which the pending agency 
     regulatory action is finalized.
       ``(c) Requirements for Public Communications.--Any public 
     communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a 
     pending agency regulatory action--
       ``(1) shall specify whether the Executive agency is 
     considering alternatives, including alternatives that may 
     conflict with the intent, objective, or methodology of such 
     agency regulatory action;
       ``(2) shall specify whether the Executive agency is 
     accepting or will be accepting comments;
       ``(3) shall expressly disclose that the Executive agency is 
     the source of the information to the intended recipients; and
       ``(4) may not--
       ``(A) solicit support for or promote the pending agency 
     regulatory action; or
       ``(B) include statements of aggrandizement for the 
     Executive agency, any Federal employee, or the pending agency 
     regulatory action.
       ``(d) Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than January 15 of each year, 
     the head of an Executive agency that communicated about a 
     pending agency regulatory action during the previous fiscal 
     year shall submit to each committee of Congress with 
     jurisdiction over the activities of the Executive agency a 
     report indicating--
       ``(A) the number pending agency regulatory actions the 
     Executive agency issued public communications about during 
     that fiscal year;
       ``(B) the average number of public communications issued by 
     the Executive agency for each pending agency regulatory 
     action during that fiscal year;
       ``(C) the 5 pending agency regulatory actions with the 
     highest number of public communications issued by the 
     Executive agency in that fiscal year; and
       ``(D) a copy of each public communication for the pending 
     agency regulatory actions identified in subparagraph (C).
       ``(2) Availability of reports.--The head of an Executive 
     agency that is required to submit a report under paragraph 
     (1) shall make the report publicly available in a searchable 
     format in

[[Page H5474]]

     a prominent location on the website of the Executive 
     agency.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 306 the 
     following new item:

``307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory action.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 114-744. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Boustany

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 114-744.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. 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 3, line 13, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 3, line 15, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 3, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(v) if a regulatory impact analysis or similar cost-
     benefit analysis has been conducted, the findings of such 
     analysis, including any data or formula used for purposes of 
     such analysis.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 863, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I am here to offer an amendment to H.R. 
5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016. This amendment is based on 
legislation I proposed earlier in the year.
  By creating a new process that requires the administration to keep a 
clear, organized, and easy-to-understand list of all proposed and 
outstanding rules and regulations, we are forcing transparency on 
bureaucrats who are currently running amok.
  I also want to thank my colleague, Mr. Loudermilk, for working with 
me to offer this very sensible amendment.
  Our simple amendment requires the administration to make the data 
collected and the formula used for all Regulatory Impact Analysis, or 
RIA, publicly available. This is about simple transparency.
  In other words, for an example, let's say BSEE, under the Department 
of the Interior, says that the well control rule--a proposal that will 
drastically affect the Louisiana energy offshore sector--will only cost 
the offshore oil and gas industry $800 million to implement, and 
industry projections put that number over $9 billion, well, BSEE should 
be required to prove how they reached those figures. They should be 
required to make completely transparent their assumptions and their 
methodology. That is what the American people ask for.

                              {time}  1615

  The Obama administration is responsible for an unparalleled expansion 
of the regulatory state, with the imposition of 229 major regulations 
since 2009, a lot of costs incurred.
  These proposals are being made with little regard to impact on 
businesses at a time of weak economic growth. The constant barrage of 
new regulations is causing some of the rules to be counterproductive, 
contradictory, difficult to understand, and impossible to implement.
  This simple amendment will allow Congress to send a clear message to 
the administration that regulations must be based in facts, clearly 
understood, and completely transparent to the impacted industry and to 
the American public.
  I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment does not alleviate my concerns with the underlying 
bill. In fact, this amendment may lead to more confusion.
  It would require an agency to publish a cost benefit analysis for all 
rules if such a study was conducted. Agencies are already required to 
conduct a cost-benefit analysis for major rules under Executive Order 
12866. Agencies publish the results of those analyses in the rulemaking 
dockets for those rules.
  This is an unnecessary amendment, and I oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, this is an absolutely essential amendment 
because we need more transparency about methods and how these 
assumptions are built into what they are proposing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Loudermilk).
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for 
working with us on combining two really good amendments to this.
  Mr. Chairman, we live in an era right now of vast growth of our 
government. Those that are bearing the burden of this growth and this 
overregulation are the American people. The average American family 
pays $15,000 a year in hidden regulatory costs. The burden of 
regulation upon the market and upon the industry today in our 
businesses is almost $1.9 trillion, nearly a $2 trillion impact on our 
economy that is coming out of our GDP.
  If we want to see a recovery, if we want to actually see success in 
this Nation in our economy, let's reduce the regulation. But we live in 
an era right now where the mentality of this government is: if it 
breaths, tax it; if it doesn't breath, subsidize it; and if it is 
successful, then we will regulate it.
  All this amendment does is require that these regulatory agencies be 
honest with the American people, be transparent with the American 
people, and let the American people know the cost that is going to come 
out of their pocketbooks for increasing regulation upon Americans, upon 
individuals, and upon their businesses.
  I thank the gentleman for stepping forward and working with us on 
this amendment.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The American people want transparency. I don't understand why our 
friends on the other side of the aisle would be opposed to 
transparency. All we are asking is that these agencies be truthful and 
very clear with the American public and provide all assumptions built 
into their methods of calculating the impact and the cost.
  This is a simple amendment. It is a simple ask. We shouldn't even 
have to ask for this.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLAY. 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 Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Fleming

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 114-744.
  Mr. FLEMING. 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 3, line 13, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 3, line 15, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 3, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(v) if applicable, a list of agency regulatory actions 
     issued by the Executive agency, or any other Executive 
     agency, that duplicate or overlap with the agency regulatory 
     action.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 863, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5226,

[[Page H5475]]

also known as the Regulatory Integrity Act.
  My amendment requires agencies to disclose where a proposed rule 
would duplicate or overlap with other existing rules when they are 
making the online disclosure required by the underlying bill. Our 
economy, and small businesses in particular, are suffering under a wet 
blanket of legislation, and it is particularly onerous when businesses 
have to comply with multiple sets of these regulations. One area that 
hits particularly close to home in Louisiana is the EPA's methane rule 
and its overlap with the BLM's methane and waste reduction rule.
  Louisiana's Fourth District is home to the Haynesville Shale, one of 
our Nation's largest sources for natural gas. BLM doesn't have any 
authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions, so, instead, 
they decided to regulate methane emissions under the guise of 
eliminating waste. This is a poorly disguised attempt to double-
regulate those who produce natural gas on Federal lands and comes after 
BLM has superseded State fracking regulations with their own additional 
layer of costly Federal regulation.
  EPA's regulation alone will make many oil and gas production wells 
cost prohibitive in today's economy, which of course is their desire as 
they pursue a ``keep it in the ground'' agenda. That is why I 
introduced H.R. 4037, the Keeping Oil and Natural Gas Flowing for 
Consumers Act, to block EPA's harmful rule and protect consumers.
  One example that might appeal to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle is with respect to renewable energy. Now, I do not believe 
the Federal Government should be subsidizing any form of energy. We 
should have a marketplace where the most affordable and reliable energy 
sources freely compete with one another. But if my colleagues do want 
to subsidize wind farms, I would ask them, why do they have 10 
different regulatory agencies with 96 forms that impose 3 million hours 
of paperwork costing an estimated $177 million to complete? That seems 
counterproductive to their cause.
  The House has recognized the need to eliminate costly and duplicative 
regulations. In January of this year, we passed H.R. 1155, the SCRUB 
Act, by Jason Smith. My amendment would complement that effort by 
requiring agencies to identify, within their own regulations, where 
there is duplication or overlap with other regulations and disclose 
that to the public.
  As we seek to root out corruption and prevent agencies from 
organizing Astroturf advocacy campaigns to promote costly regulations 
on the public, we must also be on the lookout for commonsense changes 
we can make to help our struggling economy recover. Identifying and 
ending duplicative rules is an easy way to start.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does nothing to fix the 
unworkable reporting requirements in the underlying bill. This 
amendment would require an agency to report if a proposed rule 
duplicates or overlaps with an existing regulation.
  Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama in 2011, already 
requires agencies to review rules for duplication and overlap. This 
amendment, itself, is duplicative and adds an unnecessary requirement 
without fixing the underlying problem.
  I oppose this amendment, along with the underlying bill, and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Missouri. 
However, if such executive orders were actually enforced, we wouldn't 
have this problem. That would be great if President Obama's executive 
orders actually did prevent duplication and overlapping and the 
conflict and the problems that occurred. That would be great.
  But, evidently, people in his own administration, the Obama 
administration, don't heed the requirements that are set forth by the 
leader of that, which is President Obama. That is why we need this in 
law, Mr. Chairman, because Congress itself needs to hold the agencies, 
and certainly the Obama administration, accountable for not enforcing 
the very executive orders that they put out.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 114-744.
  Mr. McKINLEY. 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 5, line 3, strike ``; or'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 5, after line 3, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) be sent through the private email account of an 
     officer or employee of the Executive agency; or''.
       Page 5, line 4, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 863, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It 
is a fairly simple amendment which will prevent employees and other 
officers of an executive agency from using private email accounts when 
discussing pending regulatory actions.
  In doing so, we will ensure that there is a clear record of 
communication throughout the rulemaking process, while making certain 
that no favoritism is received privately to a particular organization 
or outside group when drafting a rule.
  Private communications--and that is the key word, ``private 
communications''--between those that stand to gain from a pending rule 
and a regulatory agency raise, I believe, legitimate questions. We have 
seen this time and time again in the last few years. Specifically, 
there has been evidence of these private emails being used and working 
in the shadows with outside groups on cross-State air pollution, the 
Clean Power Plan, and Pebble Mine, just as examples.
  These attempts to circumvent transparency by secretly using an 
outside group, by providing an outside group a seat at the table when 
regulations are being developed, is unacceptable and unfair. It has to 
stop, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would prevent this from happening 
and go a long way to promoting transparency, accountability, and 
integrity by our regulatory officials.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and final passage of 
the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that this amendment 
is simple, but it is simply another excuse for Members on the other 
side to talk about emails. I believe that the issue that my colleague 
is attempting to address has already been addressed when, in 2014, 
President Obama signed into law the Presidential and Federal Records 
Act Amendments.
  That legislation was sponsored by the ranking member of the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee, Elijah Cummings, and it added into 
law, for the first time, a specific requirement for Federal employees 
who use personal email accounts. That law now requires Federal 
employees, if they create a Federal or Presidential record using a 
personal email account, to forward a copy of the email to their 
official account within 20 days of that email.

                              {time}  1630

  This amendment would create a unique requirement for emails about 
rulemaking. I agree that employees should use their government email 
accounts whenever possible, but this bill is not the place to make new 
rules about Federal records. I--and I hope my colleagues--will oppose 
this amendment.

[[Page H5476]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chair, what I could hear was that what we are 
trying to do here actually is expand that deal with rules and 
regulations. We understand it can be on other matters. I accept that. 
If they want to use official communication, that is fine. We just want 
a record that someone doesn't have to explore to try to find out what 
that is under rules and regulations.
  So, again, I believe that we should stand on this, adopt this 
amendment, and ultimately pass the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Boustany

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 241, 
noes 154, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 508]

                               AYES--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     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
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lieu, Ted
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     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
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     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
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--154

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

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Bass
     Becerra
     Bishop (UT)
     Cartwright
     Cleaver
     DesJarlais
     Fincher
     Gutierrez
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, Sam
     Keating
     Lawrence
     Loebsack
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     McHenry
     Meng
     Messer
     Moolenaar
     Palazzo
     Pelosi
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Russell
     Serrano
     Thompson (MS)
     Veasey
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (IN)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1654

  Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. PALLONE, and Miss RICE of New York changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SHIMKUS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidable absent in the House 
chamber for rollcall vote 508 on Wednesday, September 14, 2016. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained at the White 
House. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall No. 508, 
``nay.''
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 508.
  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. 
Fleischmann) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, 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. 
5226) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the 
publication of information relating to pending agency regulatory 
actions, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 863, 
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

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.

[[Page H5477]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kildee moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5226 to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Page 5, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(d) Applicability.--The restriction described in 
     subsection (c)(4) shall not apply to any public communication 
     to combat a public health crisis including the Zika virus, 
     opioid abuse, and lead poisoning.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes
  Mr. KILDEE. 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.
  This bill is yet another Republican attempt to delay the formation of 
critical regulations, including those we need to keep our communities 
safe. In addition, this bill actually prohibits agencies from publicly 
communicating to the American people about why a proposed regulation or 
action is beneficial, including vital information about the impact on 
public health. We cannot allow the underlying bill to impede the 
government's ability to share critical public health information.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is pretty simple. It would allow 
agencies to provide critical information to the public in order to 
combat public health crises, like Zika, like opioid abuse, or like the 
lead poisoning that has been experienced in my hometown of Flint. I 
know what happens when we ignore or impede the ability to enforce 
regulations. Thousands of children in my hometown of Flint, Michigan, 
have suffered from lead poisoning.
  Even now, I know many Members on both sides of the aisle ask: How is 
it going in Flint? They often ask me: Is this crisis over; has it been 
settled? Today, a year after this crisis became public, 2 years after 
the State of Michigan switched Flint's drinking water source from the 
Great Lakes to the Flint River in order to save money, 2 years later, 2 
years after lead has poured through the pipes into the bodies of 
children, you still can't drink the water in Flint.
  If you came to Flint today, you would see families still lugging 
bottled water from distribution sites into their homes to drink, to 
cook, to bathe their children in bottled water. In the 21st century, in 
the greatest country on Earth, the wealthiest nation ever imagined, we 
have a city of 100,000 people that can't drink the water that comes 
from the tap because it is poisoned.
  Federal standards require action if water gets above 15 parts per 
billion. Because the State of Michigan ignored the regulations and 
assured the public that the water was safe, we have levels in Flint 
that have been tested not at 15 parts per billion, 150 parts per 
billion, 1500 parts per billion, 23,000 parts per billion in the city 
of Flint today, a year after this crisis became public.
  How did this happen? It happened because State agencies decided that 
dollars and cents come before the health of people, ignored the 
regulations that are on the books, were prevented from explaining that 
to the people, and, in fact, told them a story that the water was safe. 
And a year later--a year later--the State has barely acted, sending 
Flint a get-well card. As many of you know, I have come to this well 
time and time again, imploring my colleagues to join me in providing 
some relief to the people of Flint.
  I came here with a lot of folks in 2012, when I was elected. In 2013, 
one of the first votes I cast on the floor of the House of 
Representatives was to provide help, much-needed help to the victims of 
Hurricane Sandy. Not my district, none of that money flowed to my 
district, but I was proud--I am still proud of that vote because I and 
so many of us stood with Americans who were facing the biggest struggle 
they ever faced. Yet, a year later, in this poor community, which in 
many ways has been left behind before, you still can't drink the water 
in Flint, and we can't get even a little help to try to rebuild this 
community.
  Look, time matters. We can't wait more months. Every day, every week 
that passes that this community does not get the help it needs just to 
make sure that this doesn't happen again, just to fix the distribution 
system, to replace some of those lead lines so that a year from now or 
2 years from now this doesn't happen again and these children are 
poisoned again, at the very least, for God's sake, at the very least, 
we ought to be able to help this community provide its families with 
water that they can drink. That is all I am asking for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). The gentleman from 
Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say from the outset, I 
certainly appreciate my good friend. I want to join, as I have all 
along, in support for my good friend and colleague from Flint in making 
sure that we do something about what has gone on there, the pain and 
suffering that they have gone through needlessly.
  I am proud to say that I have been supportive and have traveled to 
Flint and have been supportive of the legislation we have moved from 
this House. We look forward when we hear possible good reports of 
optimism that something will be coming from the Senate, that we will do 
something further in dealing with that problem. I want to stand with my 
friend on that.
  I think there are questions that have to be addressed relative to 
public health, but in this legislation, that goes way outside of what 
we are talking about. First of all, in committee, as well as in the 
Committee on Rules, this amendment wasn't offered. I think it wasn't 
because it didn't need to be.
  Nothing in this legislation precludes an agency from communicating on 
these issues, whether it be lead poisoning in the water, Zika, or 
opioid abuse. Nothing precludes that from taking place. In fact, that 
is what we are encouraging, when agencies are promulgating a rule and a 
proposed rule has been put forward that they put forward the facts. 
That is all.
  They have a power way beyond the general public to get information 
out, but, in turn, the general public ought to know that when they have 
an opportunity for public comment that agencies will honestly listen to 
what they are offering, and that the American public and American free 
enterprise system will be heard, and then the opportunity for Congress 
to interact as well with the bureaucratic agencies, and ultimately a 
rule will be promulgated and put in place that makes sense for all 
concerned, and people are protected.
  That is what this bill does. It goes against agencies such as EPA. On 
the waters of the U.S., EPA and organizations should have been 
assisting Michigan and their environmental protection entities in 
dealing with issues of lead poisoning. Rather, on waters of the U.S., 
they were putting out releases, public statements through media, social 
media, saying: ``Choose clean water,'' ``clean water is important to 
me,'' ``I support EPA's efforts to protect my health, my family, and my 
community.'' Send that back in the rulemaking process. They were 
lobbying, and we have laws against that. This beefs that up and makes 
it very clear that the bureaucracy will listen to us to meet our needs, 
to make sure we are taken care of, and ultimately society works well.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this motion to 
recommit and vote against it, vote it down.
  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

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 238, not voting 8, as follows:

[[Page H5478]]

  


                             [Roll No. 509]

                               AYES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     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
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     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
     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.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     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)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     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)
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     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
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     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
     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)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     DesJarlais
     Fincher
     Johnson, Sam
     Meng
     Messer
     Palazzo
     Rush
     Thompson (MS)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. TROTT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 171, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 510]

                               AYES--250

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     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)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     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)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     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
     Scott, David
     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
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     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)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard

[[Page H5479]]


     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     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
     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)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     DesJarlais
     Fincher
     Johnson, Sam
     Meng
     Palazzo
     Richmond
     Rush
     Thompson (MS)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1721

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

                          ____________________