[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.
____________________